Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 7021

 1                           Thursday, 11 June 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.

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

 7     courtroom.

 8             Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.

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

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

11     the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

13             Appearances.  Mr. Harmon.

14             MR. HARMON:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon to

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

16     Prosecution.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

18             Mr. Lukic.

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

20     afternoon to everyone in the courtroom.  Mr. Perisic is represented today

21     by Milos Androvic, Tina Drolec, Daniela Tasic, Colleen Rohan, and our

22     interns are here, Katharine Marshall and Jason Keck, and

23     Mr. Gregor Guy-Smith and Novak Lukic.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much, Mr. Lukic.  We go through the

25     ritual, still bound by the declaration you made at the beginning to tell

Page 7022

 1     the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth.

 2                           WITNESS:  MIODRAG STARCEVIC [Resumed]

 3                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 4             Just before we begin, Mr. Lukic, I guess because Mr. Starcevic is

 5     not able to talk to anybody, he has sent word to the Chamber to say that

 6     he would like to leave tomorrow if it is at all possible, and I don't

 7     know -- it's not in my hands.  It's not in the Chamber's hands.  It's in

 8     the hands of counsel.

 9             Do you think can you give him that guarantee?

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concerned he most

11     certainly can because I'm going to complete my cross in half an hour

12     today.  But I don't know if this is all that significant.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You wouldn't need the whole two session and the

14     whole day tomorrow too.

15             MR. HARMON:  That's correct, Your Honour.  I think we can

16     reassure Mr. Starcevic that can he go home tomorrow.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Starcevic, see I'm a

18     good lawyer, Mr. Starcevic.  You'll get my bill.

19             Mr. Lukic.

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I got no translation, Mr. Lukic.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I just asked to go into private

23     session, please, Your Honour.

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

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

Page 7023

1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in private session.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

 3             Yes, Mr. Lukic.

 4                           Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Starcevic, if you recall yesterday, we

 6     finished with a number of documents that referred to the procedure that

 7     had to do with that person, Vujic, about whom there was a disciplinary

 8     court of the VRS disciplinary court, and then we established that he had

 9     been pensioned off by the Army of Yugoslavia.  And you agreed with me

10     that it indicated that he - let me put this that way - was terminated

11     from active military service on different grounds which was stated in the

12     decision of the disciplinary court.

13             Now we're going to look at a document that you also looked at

14     with Mr. Harmon.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at document P2417,

16     under seal.

17        Q.   Do you remember that you said for this document that you

18     established that this was also a sentence or a judgement by the

19     disciplinary court of the VRS, and there was a legal remedy involved

20     also, wasn't there?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And then you also analysed for Mr. Harmon the sequence of events

23     as far as proceedings for Antic, Zoran.  We also see the entire judgement

24     here pertaining to him?

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up a little bit,

Page 7024

 1     please, so that we can see the particulars.  This part is excellent and

 2     can we please look at the same section in the English.  Probably it's on

 3     the next page.

 4        Q.   What it says here in the particulars as we say that in the legal

 5     world, under number 2, about Antic, Zoran, at the time the judgement was

 6     reached and that was on the 23rd of September, 1995, and in parentheses,

 7     and it cannot be seen on the screen right now.  This is something,

 8     probably, that we can see, and it does say that in the document.  That,

 9     according to the particulars, he is currently at an unknown address in

10     the VRS from the 15th of March 1995 [as interpreted] -- from the 15th of

11     February, 1995 [as interpreted].  And then we have the dispositive or the

12     main body of the sentence where it states --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The interpretation said 1995.  I read.

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  15th of February,

15     1993.  We apologise, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You may proceed, Madam Interpreter -- or

17     Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, no -- yes, yes.

19        Q.   And it says, "Are guilty."  Meaning specifically what it says at

20     the end of this first paragraph.  The second accused or co-accused Antic,

21     Zoran, on 13th of March, 1995.  Is that actually the date when he

22     actually left the unit of his own will -- wilfully?

23        A.   Yes, that is correct.

24        Q.   Simply speaking that is the day of his desertion?  I'm using some

25     easier language; isn't that right?

Page 7025

 1        A.   I understand.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up, or, actually,

 3     scroll down this B/C/S part of.  The English version of the text does not

 4     need to be moved.

 5             Can we scroll down a little bit more, please, so that we can see

 6     the heading of the document.

 7        Q.   Can you please confirm for me that this judgement was reached on

 8     the 23rd of September, 1995.  That is the day when the court practically

 9     established his guilt; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes, that is correct.

11        Q.   Compared to the previous case, Mr. Harmon did not show you a

12     single document which would indicate that that man appeared as a

13     serviceman in the Army of Yugoslavia.  You didn't see any document

14     indicating that that man, after this point in time, when he deserted, was

15     in any unit of the Army of Yugoslavia or the Army of Republika Srpska; is

16     that correct?

17        A.   It is possible.  I don't recall that.

18        Q.   Based on the assumption that this Mr. Antic, as well as based on

19     the assumption in the first case of Mr. Kosojevic, when he left that unit

20     of the Republika Srpska that he never went to any other unit of the Army

21     of Yugoslavia.

22             Would you agree with me that the person who has the duty to

23     establish, in administrative terms, the day that all the rights due

24     cease --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat the question.

Page 7026

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in order for rights to be

 2     suspended or cease for somebody, there has to be established a ground for

 3     that.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry -- apologise to the

 5     interpreter.  I'm going to have to repeat my question.

 6        Q.   Because my whole question was not recorded in the transcript, and

 7     I don't want to paraphrase, I'm going to answer -- I'm going to repeat.

 8     You would agree with me that if a certain person does not return to a

 9     unit of the Army of Yugoslavia and left the unit of the Army of Republika

10     Srpska as established in this judgement, then the Republika Srpska has to

11     establish, in the administrative sense, that his status has ended -- the

12     status based on which he achieves or exercises his statutory rights.

13        A.   Yes.  In order for these rights to be terminated, a certain basis

14     or certain grounds are required.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now look at document

17     1D03-0129 on the screen, please.  We still need to remain in private

18     session.

19        Q.   Can you please look at this document carefully, Mr. Starcevic.

20             I'm going to ask you about the contents, but I'm going to ask you

21     about the form.  This is what Mr. Harmon also asked you about.

22             From this document, we can first see that it is dated the --

23     July 18th, 1995.  I'm going to call it, and you're going to tell me if

24     you agree with that term that it is a letter or missive of the chief of

25     the General Staff of the VJ sent to the chief of the Main Staff of the

Page 7027

 1     Republic of the Serbian Krajina; is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes, in its a form this is a letter.  We could also say that it

 3     is a recommendation, also, as well as a request.

 4        Q.   That's what I wanted to put the next question about.  Based on

 5     these contents and the way Mr. Perisic is addressing Mr. Mrksic, we can

 6     see that from the words "kindly," and so on and so forth "influence," can

 7     it be seen from this kind of address that there was any kind of

 8     hierarchical relationship between Mr. Mrksic and Mr. Perisic and these

 9     two armies?

10        A.   This document does not indicate any form of hierarchy, because in

11     a hierarchy, you would not kindly ask somebody but you would issue an

12     order.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just one moment, Your Honours.

14                           [Defence counsel confer]

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Very well.  Very well.  I propose

16     that this document be tendered into evidence, Your Honours, under seal.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Did --

18             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, I don't see the relationship between

19     this document and this witness.  Under the guidelines, I would object.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are you throwing in the towel?

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, no.  I'm going to propose that

22     the document be tendered as a MFI, and then when we finish the

23     examination of Mr. Starcevic, I'm going to talk about my earlier remarks

24     in terms of Mr. Harmon, and I'm going to discuss my proposal.

25             I will probably propose that all of this be withdrawn, but, any

Page 7028

 1     way, to follow the rules, I would now like to tender this document and

 2     propose it for -- that it be marked for identification.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

 4             MR. HARMON:  Well, my objection stand, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Even for marked for identification?

 6             MR. HARMON:  [Microphone not activated] It can be marked for

 7     identification [Microphone not activated] defer the argument on this

 8     until a later time.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Overlapping speakers] ... okay.

10             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I would need to -- then I would

11     still need to state my position, if you agree.

12             Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Starcevic about that document which was a

13     warning or contained a warning, if you recall that.  And he and he talked

14     about the form of that document, so in the same -- along the same lines,

15     I propose that this document too be tendered and marked for

16     identification, until we state our arguments on that whole matter.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let's try to save time.  Mr. Harmon said you will

18     argue this later.  You will argue later, okay?

19             It's admitted and marked for identification.  May it please be

20     given an exhibit number.  Do you want it under seal or not under seal?

21             Under seal, we're in private session.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D125, marked

23     for identification, under seal.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

25             Yes, Mr. Lukic.

Page 7029

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The next document that I would like

 2     to show Mr. Starcevic is also under seal, and I would like us to then

 3     still remain in private session.  This is 1D03-0128.

 4        Q.   Can you please look at this document, Mr. Starcevic, and then

 5     after you look at it -- or when you need it to be scold up, just let us

 6     know.

 7             Mr. Starcevic, this document, signed by the chief of the General

 8     Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, and in its introduction, it refers to

 9     security, and it also refers to BG, BG means [B/C/S spoken] readiness; is

10     that correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   It's an order sent to the 1st Army Command of the air force and

13     the anti-aircraft defence.  KS, do you remember what that is?  Do you

14     recall what that is?

15        A.   I'm not quite sure.  I think it could be one of the corps.

16        Q.   Perhaps if I were to tell you that these were special units, do

17     you perhaps know this abbreviation SBK, what does that indicate?

18        A.   I think that that refers to the area of Slavonia and Baranja, and

19     it's the Slavonia Baranja Corps.  And the SOB is actual territory of

20     Slavonia and Baranja, [B/C/S spoken] Slavonia Baranja.

21        Q.   This Slavonia Baranja Corps was not part of the Yugoslav Army;

22     correct?

23        A.   Judging by this order, it wasn't.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic, you ask the witness about KS.  Where is

25     KS.

Page 7030

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] You can see KSJ next to the title

 2     which says order sent to the command of the 1st Army RV and PVO and then

 3     KSJ.  That means special units corps of Yugoslavia.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  KSJ I see.  I didn't see KS.  Thank you so much.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   So what I said and what was not recorded on page 9, line 17, my

 7     question about the SBO or, rather, SBK, that stands for Slavonia Baranja

 8     Corps.  And the witness gave an answer.

 9             Now, in your answer, you said that it wasn't judging by this

10     order.  Now let me ask you this:  This document, even in visual terms, is

11     significantly -- makes a very clear distinction between two terms, "I

12     order," and the other is "I recommend" or "I command" and "I recommend"?

13        A.   Yes, that's correct.

14        Q.   Now, in this portion which means -- which says that Mr. Perisic

15     gives an order, Item 1 reads as follows:

16             "Keep all current measures of combat readiness of the territory

17     of the FRY."

18             Now this is a classic example of an order issued by the chief of

19     the General Staff to his units deployed in the territory for which is he

20     responsible under the law.

21        A.   Yes, that's correct.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Did you just say this area is outside FRY?  If it

23     is outside -- if it is outside the FRY, is it under his -- is it under

24     his area of responsibility?

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] That was my next question, because,

Page 7031

 1     with regard to this territory, he didn't issue an order -- let me ask the

 2     witness about this.  I'm not going make any suggestions in this respect,

 3     myself.

 4        Q.   Now, in this part in which Mr. Perisic is recommending -- his

 5     recommendation refers to the territory of Slavonia and Baranja district,

 6     which is the territory outside the FRY, over which, under the Law on the

 7     Army, he has no jurisdiction; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 9        Q.   And this recommendation can clearly be construed as a mode of

10     cooperation between two armies that have similar strategic positions.

11        A.   Well, whether it was cooperation or not, but in any case, this is

12     not a binding document, which indicates that there was a desire to offer

13     assistance in resolving the situation.

14             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask for this document

15     to be marked for MFI, under seal.

16             MR. HARMON:  No objection to that status, Your Honour.  I have no

17     objection to that status.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  The document is admitted into

19     evidence, marked for identification, and kept under seal.

20             May it please be given a number.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D126, marked

22     for identification, under seal.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now look at one more

25     document?  Or, actually, two, but while we're in private session; that's

Page 7032

 1     P2018.

 2             This is also under seal.

 3        Q.   Yesterday we've seen -- we saw similar documents, but I chose to

 4     show you this one again, because Mr. Harmon asked you about this letter.

 5             This is a letter issued by the Army of Republika Srpska, judging

 6     by what you see in front of you.

 7        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 8        Q.   It was issued on the 8th of March, 2002.  This is a decision

 9     taken after the president of the Republic had issued a decree relating to

10     the persons for which he has jurisdiction, and in light of the rank of

11     Mr. Mladic, this was under the jurisdiction of the president of the

12     Republic.

13             Would you agree with me that according to this decision until the

14     28th February 2002 --

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Slow down, slow down, slow down.  Carry on.  2002.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.    -- that Mr. Ratko Mladic, until that date, enjoyed the status of

18     an officer of the Army of Republika Srpska, according to this document,

19     and was serving there?

20        A.   Yes, that's correct.

21        Q.   Now, we can go back to an open session.  This is going to be my

22     last question, and, as I promised, with this, I will conclude my

23     cross-examination.

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

25                           [Open session]

Page 7033

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

 3             Yes, Mr. Harmon [sic] -- I beg your pardon, you -- sorry.

 4             Sorry, Mr. Harmon.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have one more question, and for

 6     that purpose, I would need document P2024 to be shown on the screens,

 7     please.

 8        Q.   This document is not chronologically in sequence with the

 9     previous document, but I wanted to show it to you in an open session.

10             Can you please look at this document, sir.

11             You will agree with me, Mr. Starcevic, that this is another

12     document from the president of Republika Srpska as the commander in chief

13     of the Army of Republika Srpska.

14        A.   Yes, I agree.

15        Q.   There is mention here of the term that you also explained, which

16     means a placing an individual at the disposal, which means that this

17     particular person is still in the army but does not have a particular

18     post as per establishment.

19        A.   Yes, one can say that.  He is still in professional service but

20     is not discharging duties in any of the posts envisaged by the

21     establishment.

22        Q.   According to this document, judging by the date, Mr. Ratko Mladic

23     was still in the Army of Republika Srpska.

24        A.   Yes, according to this document, that is correct.

25        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Starcevic.

Page 7034

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have hereby concluded

 2     my cross-examination.

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

 4             Mr. Harmon.

 5                           Re-examination by Mr. Harmon:

 6        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, good afternoon.

 7        A.   Good afternoon.

 8             MR. HARMON:  Can we just return to Prosecution Exhibit 2024 that

 9     was on the screen a minute ago.

10        Q.   Now, Mr. Starcevic, the date of this document is 8.11.1996 and

11     the effect of this document is that General Mladic is put at the disposal

12     of the VRS General Staff; correct?

13        A.   Yes, that's correct.

14        Q.   This document relies on the authority of Article 369 of the Law

15     on the Army of the Republika Srpska.  Do you know the contents of that

16     law, by chance?  Do you happen to recall what that is?

17             This is the Law on the Republika Srpska.

18        A.   I think I can presume that this is an article of the law which

19     governs the methodology of placing someone at the disposal and the

20     duration of that.  But I would really prefer to look at the law.  I don't

21     want to talk about legal regulations offhand.

22        Q.   If you will bear with me for a minute, I have the law in front of

23     me, and I just want to consult what that provision is, and maybe I can

24     assist you.

25             This is my question, Mr. Starcevic.  Under the VJ law, when

Page 7035

 1     someone is put at the disposal of the army, is there a finite period of

 2     time on which they could remain at the disposal of the VJ?

 3        A.   Yes, there is, definitely a specified period, and if I remember

 4     correctly, that period could not last longer than two years.  Again, if

 5     my memory serves me well, that could stretch over a period of five years.

 6        Q.   Let me -- let me come back to that in a minute because I will

 7     have my colleague find the right provision.

 8             It's my recollection, Mr. Starcevic, that somebody could be put

 9     at the disposal in the VJ for a period not to exceed six months.  I will

10     find the text, I will re-educate myself, and I'll show it to you to give

11     you the advantage of consulting with that text before you answer my

12     question.

13        A.   That was precisely the reason why I said that I am not in favour

14     of quoting something out of memory, because memory is not a good ally in

15     such situations.

16             MR. HARMON:  Just give me a minute, if I could, Your Honour, to

17     consult with my colleague.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, take a moment.

19                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

20             MR. HARMON:

21        Q.   I will find that provision in just a moment, Mr. Starcevic, on

22     the Law on the Army, and I will be back to you in a couple of minutes

23     with a question about this particular document.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic.

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon wanted to ask a question

Page 7036

 1     relating to the Law on The Yugoslav Army and the one -- the article that

 2     governs this particular matter is 63 in the Law on the Yugoslav Army.  I

 3     think this is what Mr. Harmon had in mind when he put this question.

 4             MR. HARMON:  Yes, that's correct.  Let me --

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  No, but this one is not Yugoslav law.

 6             MR. HARMON:  I understand.  I want to start my question, first of

 7     all, with the Yugoslav law.  And if we could have P197 on the monitor for

 8     the benefit of Mr. Starcevic and for the Court's benefit.

 9             If we ... if you can go to Article 63.

10        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, again, get me ask you a question.  Is there a

11     period of time during which a person in the VJ can remain on standby, or

12     on -- at the disposal of the army?

13        A.   Yes, there is an finite period and another proof that memory

14     cannot always be relied upon.  You were right when you said that this

15     period was six months.

16        Q.   Now --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Wait a minute you're running ahead of me.  Where

18     is the six months, and does standby mean putting at the disposal of the

19     army?

20             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, at the bottom of the English,

21     Article 63, there is the term set forth.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

23             MR. HARMON:

24        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, can you answer the Judge's question, whether

25     standby, the term standby is the same as being placed at the disposal?

Page 7037

 1        A.   Yes.  It seems this is how it was translated, this term from our

 2     legislature which is at the disposal, they translated it with the term

 3     standby.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If you look at paragraph 2 of that article, would

 5     a person who is, for any reason, unfit to perform his duty be at the

 6     disposal of?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  They would be placed at the

 8     disposal, if they're unfit to perform the current duty, and there is no

 9     possibility for this person to find him a suitable post corresponding to

10     their qualifications and capabilities.

11             MR. HARMON:  Could we go back to the previous exhibit -- I'm

12     sorry, let me just get the right exhibit.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  P2024.  P2024.

14             MR. HARMON:  Yes, Your Honour, but ... yes, thank you very much.

15     It's P2024.

16             Perhaps counsel can assist me.  Could I have -- I'm looking for

17     the exhibit number for the Law on the Army of the Republika Srpska.

18             MR. LUKIC:  P191.

19             MR. HARMON:  Could I have P191 on the monitor, please.

20        Q.   Now, the basis of putting General Mladic at the disposal was

21     Article 369.

22             MR. HARMON:  Can we go to 369 of this ...

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can you enlarge it, please.  Thank you.

24             MR. HARMON:

25        Q.   Now, Mr. Starcevic, under which subpart of Article 369 of the Law

Page 7038

 1     on the Army of Republika Srpska was there authority to place

 2     General Mladic at the disposal of the army?

 3        A.   That's Item 3 of this Article 369.

 4        Q.   Okay.

 5        A.   To be more precise, paragraph 1, Item 3.

 6        Q.   Thank you very much.

 7             Now, under the Law on the Army of the Republika Srpska, was there

 8     an equivalent provision, as far as you know, as to how long a period of

 9     time an officer, under Article 369, could you placed at the disposal of

10     the army?

11        A.   I suppose there was such a provision, because placing someone at

12     the disposal is, in a way, in an unnatural order of things.  If you

13     wanted to grant some legal security for members of the military, you have

14     to put a certain time-limit.  And I suppose that this provision should be

15     sought in this law under the chapter that regulates the status-related

16     issues of military servicemen.

17                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

18             MR. HARMON:

19        Q.   Prosecution Exhibit 2018, which you saw earlier, Mr. Starcevic,

20     was -- is that in private session, 2018?

21             MR. HARMON:  Can we go into private session then.

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

23             MR. HARMON:  And could we have 2018 on the monitor, please.

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

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in private session.

Page 7039

1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

 2             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

 3             MR. HARMON:

 4        Q.   2018, which is the decision of, I believe, it was Mrs. Plavsic,

 5     as I recall, relieving General Mladic of his professional military

 6     service -- let me just wait to see the English text.

 7             Is dated the 8th of March, 2002, about six years after he had

 8     been placed on the disposal of the VRS.

 9             Can you reconcile for us, Mr. Starcevic, the disparity between

10     him being placed on the disposal in 1996, his being relieved six years

11     later?

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Scroll the English down, please.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot specifically say, because

14     I don't see the provision of the Law on the Army of Republika Srpska

15     limiting the length of time one can spend being at the disposal.  I

16     assume it's similar to the provision in the Law on the Army of

17     Yugoslavia, but I'm just assuming that.  In order to be sure, I would

18     have to see whether there is an limit on the period.  One can do that

19     just like in the Army of Yugoslavia.  If yes, then this is it a violation

20     of the law to the detriment or prejudicial to Mr. Mladic.

21             MR. HARMON:  Could we go back to the -- P191, please, which is

22     the Law on the Army of the Republika Srpska, the VRS.  And could we go to

23     Article 163, please.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can you scroll the English, please.

25             MR. HARMON:  Could you scroll down, or up in the English?  We

Page 7040

 1     need to see the entirety of Article 163.  Thank you.  Unfortunately, we

 2     have the English version on two separate pages, but we're on -- the text

 3     of the remaining part of 163 appears in the upper left-hand corner of the

 4     monitor.

 5        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, can you tell me in the Army of the Republika

 6     Srpska if there's a limit on how long someone can be placed -- a soldier

 7     can be placed at the disposal of the army?

 8        A.   Yes, this is an deadline, and, again, that is six months in this

 9     law, again.

10        Q.   So, again, can you reconcile, then, the disparity of

11     General Mladic remaining at the disposal of the VRS for six years?  How

12     do you reconcile that in light of the statutory text that's before you?

13        A.   This cannot be reconciled.  This is it an evident violation of

14     the law.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I didn't want to interfere that much,

17     but, in view of this deadline, or term of six month, the witness was not

18     told whether he had returned to some duty or not.  It is the assumption

19     of Mr. Harmon at some point, maybe, but only on that basis, perhaps, can

20     one give an answer to this effect.

21             MR. HARMON:  I don't know if that is an objection or -- a speech.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I don't know either --

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, know.  What I mean is that the

24     way that Mr. Harmon put the question, whether his question was intended

25     to have him available from the point of it -- that he did not --

Page 7041

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Microphone not activated] I don't understand what

 2     you are saying.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat his question.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You're asked to repeat it.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] According to the law, this period

 6     that somebody is at the disposal somewhere else can be six month.  If

 7     Mr. Harmon is putting this question, he needs to put the assumption,

 8     whether from the point in time the decision was made he was at the

 9     disposal for these six years, and that he, then, never, in that time,

10     returned to any other establishment post.  Perhaps we can seek an answer

11     to that question, otherwise we're in the sphere of speculation.

12             The position of Mr.  -- if that is the position of Mr. Harmon,

13     and that is the witness's answer, then I don't have any objection to

14     that.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If you have an objection to that then you must

16     adduce evidence to show that that period was interrupted.  And unless you

17     can do that, what do we then do?

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I don't know if that is the position

19     of Mr. Harmon.  Was that Mr. Harmon's position, that he was never

20     returned to any kind of post or function.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you know what the position of Mr. Harmon is?

22             It looks like your objection is premature then.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, No, it seems to me that

24     Mr. Starcevic's answer could be difficult to understand, but, I mean, if

25     not then, really, I don't know.

Page 7042

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you have any answer.  I wish I could

 2     understand.

 3             MR. HARMON:  I think that Mr. Lukic is saying there is no

 4     evidence before this court that General Mladic -- one possibility that

 5     could explain the six months is that General Mladic could have returned

 6     to active duty in the VRS.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.  My point is there is no evidence before this

 8     court that he did return.

 9             MR. HARMON:  I agree, Your Honour.  So I am happy with the state

10     of the record as it exists.

11             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, if -- all right.  Very well, I'm

12     not going to complicate.

13             MR. HARMON:

14        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Starcevic, for your assistance in that particular

15     matter.  If we could turn --

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  No, no, before you do turn, I have a problem.  The

17     previous exhibit that was displayed that talked of standby --

18             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- Mr. Starcevic, you answered my question by

20     saying that that person on stand by is at the disposal of.

21             Now, this one says when he is at th disposal of, he cannot be

22     assigned to another establishment post after an organisation unit or his

23     establishment post has been disbanded.  He cannot be assigned to other

24     appropriate duty if it has been evaluated that he is partially fit for

25     active military service or unfit for the duty he is discharging.

Page 7043

 1             Now, number 2 here contradicts number 2 in the standby rule.  So

 2     in fact, here, if you are at the disposal, you can't actually -- if you

 3     are unfit or partially fit, you can't be the same person as number 2 as

 4     you explained the position -- the position of the person in paragraph 2

 5     of the other one.

 6             So it is -- for me, it seems like these two laws contradict each

 7     other.

 8             Do you have any comment on that?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not quite sure that I

10     understood your position.  All I would like to say is that in Item 2,

11     there are two grounds for placing at the disposal.  One, is limited or

12     partial fitness for any kind of military service; partial fitness.  This

13     implies that the person is fit to an extent.  There is some extent of

14     fitness, and they are being placed at the disposal, because, at that

15     point in time, they cannot find a suitable post that this person would be

16     able to be assigned to.

17             The second grounds is that the person is unfit for the duty that

18     they are performing, and this does not necessarily have to be a health

19     issue.  It can also be an issue of professional education, training, or

20     qualifications, of course, the problem of competence to perform specific

21     duties.  A person can be appointed for a commander and is a bad

22     commander.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we turn to the previous page of the English,

24     please.  I just want to see where this article begins.  Okay.

25             Okay.  Thank you so much.  Thank you.

Page 7044

 1             Yes.  Mr. Harmon.

 2             MR. HARMON:

 3        Q.   Take this just a couple of steps further, Mr. Starcevic.

 4             Do you have any information at your disposal that after

 5     General Mladic was placed at the disposal of the VRS on 8.11.1996, he

 6     returned to duty in the VRS?

 7        A.   No.  I don't know anything about any details of the service of

 8     Mr. Mladic, and I don't know him personally.  I don't have any

 9     information about these matters, no.

10        Q.   Are you aware that General Mladic was indicted for the crimes

11     committed at Srebrenica and other crimes by this institution in 1996?

12             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have an objection.  I have an

13     objection to this question.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

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

16     the framework or the bounds of my cross-examination.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You raised a question a couple of minutes ago.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You raised an objection, which -- wanting to say,

20     Was the six-year term broken or not broken?

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No.  But -- that, yes.  But not the

22     fact that he put to the witness right now, whether he knows if he is

23     accused before The Hague Tribunal now.  I don't think that there is

24     anything in my cross-examination that was put in relation to the very

25     last question that Mr. Harmon put to the witness.

Page 7045

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

 2             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, it's a predicate to the next question I

 3     intend to ask the witness.

 4             Well, I think, in fact, Your Honours, I would like Your Honours

 5     to take notice, judicial notice of the fact that General Mladic was

 6     indicted by this institution in 1996.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's not a notorious fact, Mr. Harmon.

 8             MR. HARMON:  Okay.  Well let me put -- Your Honour, we have

 9     before this Court as an exhibit, records of the indictment and records of

10     the correspondence that went to the Republika Srpska and that went to the

11     FRY notifying them of the fact of those indictments.  I don't have the

12     exhibits before --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Did you give copies of those same documents to the

14     witness?

15             MR. HARMON:  No, but --

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Isn't that then a question of argument at the end,

17     sir?

18             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, what I want to ask, the next question I

19     intend to ask the witness is following.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Maybe ask the next question.

21             MR. HARMON:  Okay, I'll do that.

22        Q.   Assuming, Mr. Starcevic, that General Mladic had been indicted by

23     this institution for genocide and other crimes, to your knowledge, would

24     an individual, who had such an indictment pending against them, be

25     permitted to maintain a position in the Army of Yugoslavia and in the

Page 7046

 1     Army of the VRS.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that this, too, is outside of

 4     the bounds of my cross-examination.

 5             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, Mr. Lukic raised an objection to the

 6     proposition that I put to Mr. Starcevic.  He said there's no information

 7     whatsoever before this Court that General Mladic returned to duty or

 8     could have returned to duty.  What I'm trying to establish with this

 9     witness is whether there is a legal disability from him doing so, and

10     that might assist in answering, at least partially, the objection that

11     Mr. Lukic raised.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You see, I guess Mr. Lukic' objection - and he can

13     speak for himself - is based on the fact that in your question, you link

14     up this whole question of indictments, which he says he never asked

15     about.

16             You know, I think if you can put your question in such a way that

17     you eliminate indictments, and you talk about Mr. Mladic's return to duty

18     in the six-year period, without referring to indictments, you probably

19     are not going to pick up an objection.  I don't know.

20             MR. HARMON:

21        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, would there be -- what limitations would there be

22     for General Mladic to return to active duty in either the VRS or in the

23     VJ?  What would be those limitations?  We've talked about fitness, one of

24     them.

25        A.   I've already said that the second reason could be unfitness, and

Page 7047

 1     that could be practical, professional, or any other unfitness to perform

 2     duties assigned.

 3             If there is a legal decision in force against that particular

 4     person, then he would not be able to return to duty, and that person

 5     would be removed from duty, they would not be placed at the disposal.

 6     So I think that, in that case, you would not be considering the grounds

 7     or the option of placing at the disposal at all, but you would be

 8     considering the option of having that particular person removed from

 9     duty, which is a different form of grounds for not returning or being

10     removed from service.

11        Q.   And when you say, just to clarify your answer, when you say "If

12     there is a legal decision in force against a particular person," what

13     type of legal decision are you referring to?

14        A.   To be precise, I said if there is an legal indictment or a

15     charging document, and there is a document -- a differences in our legal

16     system between these two documents, then such a person would be removed

17     from duties until that case is resolved finally.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you still want to stay in private session.

19             MR. HARMON:  At this -- yes, because I am now going to finish

20     with this line of questioning, Your Honour.  I'm going to question

21     Mr. Starcevic about another exhibit that was shown.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

23             MR. HARMON:  And is this --

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Half past.

25             MR. HARMON:  Half past.  Thank you.  Could we have D125, MFI,

Page 7048

 1     under seal, on the monitor, please.

 2        Q.   We looked at this document a minute ago, Mr. Starcevic.  This is

 3     a document that is from General Perisic and it says to -- and the first

 4     paragraph is directed to the Main Staff of the SVK.  And it says:

 5             "Please influence the political leadership of the Republic of

 6     Serbian Krajina."

 7             Let me ask you, Mr. Starcevic, have you ever seen such a similar

 8     document requesting that a unit influence the political leadership of

 9     another country?

10        A.   I'm trying to remember, but I don't think that I've ever seen

11     such a document.

12        Q.   Now, such -- let's look at this document on its face.

13             Could General Perisic have ordered the Main Staff of the Serbian

14     Army of the Krajina to influence the political leadership of a different

15     country?  Could he have said this differently through an order?

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could we have order, please.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that there were any

18     grounds for him to send an order and that he couldn't have issued a

19     command or ordered the Main Staff of another army, the army of another

20     state.

21             MR. HARMON:

22        Q.   Okay.  When you say -- just to finalise this, you don't think

23     there is any grounds for him to send an order, an order to influence

24     another state?  Is that what -- that's the type of order I'm asking you

25     about.  Could he have given an order to a subordinate unit to influence

Page 7049

 1     political leadership of another state?

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

 3             Mr. Lukic.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think -- I think that this question

 5     exceeds the bounds of my cross-examination.  I did not ask Mr. Starcevic

 6     about the content of the document.  I also think that with this document

 7     and this question -- in this question, Mr. Starcevic is being asked to

 8     enter into the area of constitutional relationships, and I think that he

 9     is less competent as an expert on the political leadership and those

10     matters, and that was not the topic of my cross-examination, and this is

11     the gist of my objection.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic, can you give us a reference to where

13     you asked that question, because I'm having a different recollection of

14     your cross-examination on this document from what you are saying.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just one moment, Your Honour.  I

16     would like it find it.

17             Pages 7 and 8.  My question was -- page 6, line 20, this is what

18     my assistants are telling me.  I'm asking about the form of the document

19     I think that the question that Mr. Harmon is putting now does not arise

20     from the questions that I put to the witness, so I -- I stand by my

21     objection.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If you look at paragraph -- page 7, sir, line 1

23     that's what I wanted to put the next question about.  Based on these

24     contents, and the way Mr. Perisic is addressing Mr. Mrksic, we request --

25     see that from the words kindly and -- well, that's how it was interpreted

Page 7050

 1     but it says, please, and so on, and so forth influence, can it be seen

 2     interest of this kind of address there was any kind of hierarchical

 3     relationship between Mr. Mrksic and Mr. Perisic in those hierarchical

 4     relationship command and control.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Between the two armies, that was my

 6     question.  But I think that Mr. Harmon is now going for the relationship

 7     and the influence on a different political leadership, on another

 8     political leadership.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I think, then, that the objection is semantic.

10     I'll overruled it.

11             MR. HARMON:

12        Q.   So, Mr. Starcevic.  Mr. Starcevic, can you -- you remember my

13     question?  If not, I will repeat my question.

14        A.   Yes, please.

15        Q.   Okay.  Could -- could General Perisic --

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me, I do apologise, Mr. Harmon, but I

17     think this may become an issue at a later point in time.  And,

18     unfortunately, Judge Moloto's ruling did not get on the transcript.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, I did say clearly the objection is

20     overruled.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I understand it's not there, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  I now appreciate.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  You mentioned that you thought it was a semantic

24     issue and you had overruled it, and I just -- I have a feeling this may

25     become an issue at a later point in time, and I do apologise to all the

Page 7051

 1     parties for interrupting because this is not my witness.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's fine.  The objection is overruled, if the

 3     record can show that.

 4             MR. HARMON:

 5        Q.   I want to get you home, Mr. Starcevic, and we're not making much

 6     progress in that direction.  So let me ask this question.

 7        A.   [In English] Yeah.

 8        Q.   Could General Perisic have given a order to a subordinate unit to

 9     influence the political leadership of another state?

10        A.   [Interpretation] I'm trying to understand a command to one's own

11     subordinate unit, to influence the political leadership of another state.

12     I simply cannot understand that relationship.  General Perisic had the

13     right to issue any kind of order or command to his units, to influence --

14     or to a unit of his to influence in -- to influence any kind of organ of

15     a country with which they were in conflict.  If there is no conflict that

16     any kind of order of that kind is illegitimate.

17             MR. HARMON:  Okay.  I think I've finished with that line of

18     questioning, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we go into open session.

20             MR. HARMON:  Open session.

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

22                           [Open session]

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

25             MR. HARMON:  This might be an appropriate time for a break,

Page 7052

 1     Your Honour.  Yes, it is.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We'll take a break and come back at 4.00.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 3.30 p.m.

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

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Harmon.

 6             MR. HARMON:

 7        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, I need your assistance to make a minor correction

 8     in your earlier testimony, since you are here, and you're the only one

 9     who can do that.  I would like to direct your attention --

10             MR. HARMON:  First of all, I would like to direct the Court's

11     attention to page 5545 of the transcript, line 21.  Counsel, that's the

12     particular line I referenced earlier during the break.

13             Could I have the --

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Line 5541?

15             MR. HARMON:  Sorry, it's page 5545, line 21.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Page 5541, line 21.  I'll do it again.

17             MR. HARMON:  I will read the text of this, Your Honours, and

18     I'll --

19        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, if I could have --

20             MR. HARMON:  First of all, if I can have 197, Prosecution

21     Exhibit 197, on the monitor; and, specifically, I'd like to focus on

22     Article 181, please.

23        Q.   Now, Mr. Starcevic, let me explain just what the topic of

24     discussion was.  The topic of discussion that -- you gave the following

25     answer.  We were talking about who had the authority, which persons were

Page 7053

 1     authorised to bring persons before -- who had committed disciplinary

 2     offences before a military disciplinary court and in your answer, starts

 3     on page 5545 at line 18, you said:

 4             "However, an officer who orders that a disciplinary investigation

 5     be launched is not responsible or is not authorised to formally place the

 6     perpetrator under the jurisdiction of a disciplinary court.  Those powers

 7     rest with the officers who are defined in Article 182."

 8             MR. HARMON:  And we scroll to 182.

 9        Q.   Do you see 182, Mr. Starcevic?  Did you -- you're nodding your

10     head.  Do you see the error that is in that --

11        A.   Yes, I do.

12        Q.   What is the proper article that you should have referred to under

13     the circumstances -- under the -- in your answer?

14        A.   181.

15             MR. HARMON:  That corrects the mistake, Your Honour.  Thank you.

16        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Starcevic.

17             MR. HARMON:  If we could have -- actually I want to focus on the

18     special purpose industry.  You testified yesterday about the special

19     purpose industry.  Mr. Lukic asked you a number of questions specifically

20     relating to -- under whose jurisdiction the military industries for the

21     manufacture of weapons and military equipment was, and you said that that

22     fell under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence.  Do you recall

23     that?

24        A.   Yes I do.

25        Q.   And then you were shown Defence Exhibit 114, which was the decree

Page 7054

 1     on the adoption of the Law on Property for the Federal Republic of

 2     Yugoslavia and that Article 39, in that law, defined what movable items

 3     for special purposes included, that included weapons military, equipment

 4     to be used by the Ministry of Defence and the Yugoslav Army; correct?

 5        A.   Probably.  I cannot see that.

 6        Q.   Okay, well --

 7             MR. HARMON:  Could we have Defence Exhibit 114 on the monitor,

 8     please, and can we focus on Article 39.

 9        Q.   This is the article that Mr. Lukic directed your attention to and

10     defines in the first sentence what movable items were and under whose

11     authority this is -- this material is -- falls under.  The jurisdiction

12     under whose -- let me start again.

13             Who can distribute this material, who can manage and maintain

14     this material; is that correct?

15        A.   Well, yes.  This article, in its entirety, yes.  But you were

16     referring only to paragraph 2, where it specifies these assets, and

17     paragraph 2 speaks about who is entitled to dispose of it.

18        Q.   Who is entitled to dispose of it?

19        A.   Under this law, it is the federal minister for defence, and the

20     federal minister for internal affairs.

21        Q.   Okay.  Thank you that clarifies it.

22              Now, let me ask you, within this framework of what we're talking

23     about, do the special purposes, the military industry production plants

24     fall within this set of articles we have been talking about?

25        A.   Yes.  Basically those were the facilities used by the MOD.  But

Page 7055

 1     they are not governed by this article, because this article refers only

 2     to movable assets, whereas plants and other facilities are immovable

 3     assets.

 4        Q.   But they're under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence;

 5     correct?

 6        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 7        Q.   Now, was the special production plant, Krusik, one of those

 8     special production facilities that fell under the jurisdiction of the

 9     Ministry of Defence?

10        A.   I think yes.  I cannot be quite positive here, because basically

11     all these companies were of a mixed nature.  In other words, the

12     companies that were involved both in civilian production and partly with

13     the protection of military equipment and weapons.  But I think that this

14     particular part that was involved in the production of military equipment

15     and weapons, the federal Ministry of Defence had jurisdiction, or, to be

16     more precise, a specific directorate within the ministry.

17             MR. HARMON:  Can we go into private session.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just before we do so, how was this article

19     implemented, sir, being controlled by two ministries, either or both of

20     them?  What happens in the case of contradictory instructions from the

21     ministries or duplication of instructions?  It is not even saying that

22     they must act in concert, it's just ...

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think that the law

24     indicates that this is about the equipment being used, according to

25     paragraph 1 of this article, by the MOD for the purposes of defence, and,

Page 7056

 1     on the other hand, the federal ministry of internal affairs for security

 2     purposes.

 3             Therefore, each of these ministers was in charge of portion of

 4     the assets that was being used for its specific jurisdiction.  For

 5     example, the MOD would procure, distribute, and make use of the assets

 6     intended for defence of the country, including the army; whereas, the

 7     minister of internal affairs would carry out of same activities but with

 8     relation to the assets required by the police and other law enforcement

 9     agencies or security-related entities.

10             Therefore, it seems to me that there was no overlapping there.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

12             You were asking for?

13             MR. HARMON:  Yes.  Could I please have 65 ter 9519 on the

14     monitor.

15             Are we in private session?

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We are?  We are not.

17                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We are not in private session.

19             MR. HARMON:  Yes I wanted to go into private session.

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

21     9519.

22             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir.

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

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in private session.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

Page 7057

 1             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

 2             MR. HARMON:

 3        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, take a minute, if you would, to read the document.

 4     I'll identify it for the record.

 5             MR. HARMON:  This is a 2 September 1995 document that emanated

 6     from the Main Staff of the Army of the Republika Srpska.  In the -- the

 7     person's name whose appears at the lower left-hand side is General Ratko

 8     Mladic.  And the document is directed to the General Staff of the

 9     Yugoslav Army, chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army

10     personally, and it is a request for support to purchase 40 FAB, 275s, in

11     brackets, (air bombs).

12        Q.   Now, I want to direct your attention, Mr. Starcevic, to the last

13     two lines in the text.  That reads:

14             "Since the director of the military production at Krusik RO

15     requires approval from you, please allow us to purchase the above

16     quantity of FABs."

17             Now, Mr. Starcevic, if the Ministry of Defence was in charge of

18     the weapons and the distribution of those weapons, then on what authority

19     was General Perisic required to give his consent?  What was the basis for

20     that?

21        A.   I have to underline that I'm not completely competent to discuss

22     this topic.  But, as I understand it, one should make a distinction

23     between disposing of and procurement of items that are intended for

24     defence of a country, and, on the other hand, the sale of weapons and

25     military equipment to someone outside that particular country.

Page 7058

 1             If I remember correctly, in order for the special purpose

 2     industry to sell its products that are of interest for defence, it

 3     required approval from certain organs in the state.  Judging by this

 4     letter, it seemed that the approval of the General Staff was also

 5     required, but I'm not sure about that.  I only understand this to mean

 6     that the sales of equipment or military equipment and weapons to anyone

 7     was subject to certain international obligations undertaken by the

 8     country.  And that was precisely the reason why the special purpose

 9     industry could not, without appropriate approval, sell these items on the

10     free markets.

11        Q.   All right.

12             MR. HARMON:  Could we go into public session.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Wait a minute.  If you say, sir, that there are

14     certain international obligations, how does the Chief of Staff of the

15     General Staff get involved in political, international obligations?  This

16     person's area of responsibility, as I understand it, is with the army --

17     at home?  I would imagine that is a political thing, minister of

18     industries, and other people.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I already said that I am not very

20     comfortable in this particular area.  This is not my expertise.  But I

21     can only offer my understanding of this issue.

22             I said that, based on general information that I have, for every

23     purchase abroad, an approval of a higher organ is needed.  And as far as

24     I know, the same situation prevails in the Republic of Serbia today.  I

25     suppose that this kind of approvals from higher instances in -- in

Page 7059

 1     reaching the final decision is up to one single organ.  This is how I

 2     understand this, but I said I have this reservation regarding my limited

 3     knowledge about this specific area.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let me put the question slightly differently:

 5              From your knowledge of the Law on Defence, and the Army of the

 6     former Yugoslavia, is there any provision in there that would require the

 7     Chief of Staff of the General Staff to give approval for exportation of

 8     military equipment from the former Yugoslavia to an outside country?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are no such provisions in the

10     laws that you have cited.  This is governed and regulated by another law

11     relating to the production of military equipment.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Harmon.

13             MR. HARMON:  Could that document be --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

15             MR. HARMON:  Could that document be admitted and given an exhibit

16     number.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May it please be given a number and admitted into

18     evidence.

19             Do you want it under seal?

20             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Under seal.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P2427, under

23     seal.

24             MR. HARMON:  We can go into public session.

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

Page 7060

 1                           [Open session]

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry.  Can he just move into --

 5             MR. HARMON:  Private session again.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- private session for a short while.

 7             MR. HARMON:  Yes.

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

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in private session.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

11             Judge Picard has just brought it to my notice that, in fact, this

12     request is addressed to the Ministry of Defence of the Republika Srpska,

13     not Serbia.

14             MR. HARMON:  Your Honour, the translation that I have says --

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  In the translation indeed.

16             MR. HARMON:  The translation that I have it says it is to the

17     General Staff of the Yugoslav Army, and then in brackets it says:

18             "Chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army personally."

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we have that on the screen again please.

20             Sorry about this.  I know you want to go home.

21             Oh, yeah, to the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army, chief of the

22     General Staff -- okay.  Where did you see ...

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Microphone not activated]

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please, for the Judge.

Page 7061

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm so sorry.  You may remove the document, and we

 2     can move into open session.

 3             MR. HARMON:

 4        Q.   Mr. Starcevic I want to direct your attention and counsel's

 5     attention --

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, the Registrar is --

 7                           [Open session]

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

10             MR. HARMON:  Technology, too much credit.  I think I can push a

11     button and we can quickly do it, but it's --

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It has got to go on record that we are in open

13     session.

14             MR. HARMON:  I understand.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

16             MR. HARMON:

17        Q.   Mr. Starcevic I want to direct your attention to some questions

18     and answers that you gave yesterday.  I'm directing counsel's attention

19     to the answers that are in -- and questions found at pages 6876 to 6879

20     of the transcript.

21             You were asked by my colleague Mr. Lukic where and I quote:

22             "There was a severe and fierce civil war raging in 1992 all the

23     way through the year in which the Dayton Accords were signed."

24             And you said:  "Yes, unfortunately, that was the case."

25             And then Mr. Lukic asked:

Page 7062

 1             "Would you agree with me that that represented a permanent danger

 2     of the war spilling over into the territory of the Federal Republic of

 3     Yugoslavia?"

 4             Your answer was:

 5             "I may draw some conclusions on that, but I can agree with you

 6     that posed a danger in relation -- in two relations between Yugoslavia

 7     and the war-torn zones.  And if I may add this, I think that up until the

 8     official recognition of the new states, Croatia, Slovenia, and later,

 9     Bosnia and Herzegovina, that was, in essence, a civil war in the former

10     Yugoslavia."

11             Now, in your answer, you appeared to be making a distinction,

12     Mr. Starcevic, a distinction up until the official recognition of the new

13     states and it being a civil war.  What distinction were you trying to

14     make in respect of this answer, if any?

15        A.   Unfortunately, it will take a long time for me to give you a

16     complete explanation, but I will try and do my best to put aside that I'm

17     a professor and give you the shortest possible answer.

18             As someone who is engaged and involved in international law, I

19     can say that everything that started at the time in the former Yugoslavia

20     had the nature of a civil war, and all the conflicts initially were of

21     that nature, until certain point in time.  The decisive moment occurred

22     when certain states or republics were internationally recognised.  But in

23     most cases, that also coincided with the cessation of hostilities.

24             Let me remind you, for example, that the conflict in Slovenia had

25     already stopped.  That, at the time when Croatia was recognised as an

Page 7063

 1     independent and separate state, also the conflict ceased, that the war

 2     lasted in Bosnia-Herzegovina; but that, pursuant to the decisions of the

 3     authorities in charge, the remaining part of what used to be the SFRY

 4     actually withdrew from those areas.

 5             Unfortunately, this did not bring an end to the war in

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina, because the civil war went on there, but without the

 7     involvement of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

 8             Therefore, it was a civil war among warring parties in the

 9     territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

10             And, finally, the event that we mentioned, just occasionally and

11     superficially, but we mentioned it several times, and I think was the

12     case of the infamous Operations Flash and Storm also had elements of a

13     civil war between the official armed forces of Croatia and the forces of

14     the Army of the Serbian Republic of the Krajina.

15        Q.   [Overlapping speakers]

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are you saying Croatia had not been recognised by

17     the time of Operation Storm as an independent state?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not what I'm saying.

19     I'm only saying that the conflict was ragging in the territory of that

20     state and that it was an internal conflict between two forces within one

21     state.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

23             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

24             MR. HARMON:

25        Q.   Focussing on Bosnia just briefly, if, in fact, forces from an

Page 7064

 1     outside country were involved in that conflict, would the

 2     characterization of the conflict be different?

 3        A.   It is not easy to give a simple answer to this question, because

 4     there had been precedent before that conflict.  Let me just remind you of

 5     the case of Nicaragua without going into broadcast discussions about this

 6     particular case.

 7             It is necessary for the intensity on interference and involvement

 8     for it to justify the conflict to be characterized and considered as

 9     international one.  Speaking about Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is difficult to

10     say that this level of intensity had been achieved, particularly after

11     the well-known judgement rendered by the International Court of Justice.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just a yes or no, would you say the current war in

13     Afghanistan is international or civil, with the involvement of the US in

14     it?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The war in Afghanistan has both

16     types of features.  That is what we experts in international law are

17     trying to define, what internationalised conflicts are.  That is to say,

18     they initially start as internal conflicts, but with the involvement of

19     third parties, they become internationalised.  There is it no doubt that

20     the level of involvement or the degree of involvement into what,

21     initially, was a civil war in Afghanistan is really close to the point

22     when it can be considered as an international one.  However, one has to

23     bear in mind another fact and that is the involvement of the UN in

24     keeping with the UN charter, and that has a tremendous effect on the

25     ultimate formulation and definition.

Page 7065

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 2             Mr. Harmon.

 3             MR. HARMON:  Could with we have Defence Exhibit 121 on the

 4     screen.

 5        Q.   While that is getting on the screen, Mr. Starcevic, you were

 6     shown a number of documents yesterday including this document that will

 7     appear on the screen, and you were asked whether --

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm told that document is confidential,

 9     Mr. Harmon.

10             MR. HARMON:  Okay.  If we can go into private session.

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

12                           [Private session]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7066

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7                           [Open session]

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

10             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

11             MR. HARMON:  Yes, thank you.

12        Q.   When this document comes on the screen, Mr. Starcevic, I'd like

13     you to orient us through this document.

14             This is a page from the personnel file of Dragomir Milosevic, and

15     I'd like to focus your attention on -- and this is the VJ file of

16     Dragomir Milosevic.  I'd like to focus your attention on the fourth box

17     down on the left, and the one that says that he was transferred for the

18     needs of the service to be Chief of Staff and ZK.

19             On what basis was Dragomir Milosevic transferred to the unit

20     that's mentioned in there, which is the 30th Personnel Centre, in

21     Belgrade?

22             Do you see that on the -- do you need that enlarged,

23     Mr. Starcevic?

24             MR. HARMON:  Can we enlarge the fourth box down.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it would be good.  Because it

Page 7067

 1     is not really all that legible.

 2             MR. HARMON:  Same on the English, please.  I don't think that

 3     quite did it.  Let's try again, if we could.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that fourth square.

 5             MR. HARMON:

 6        Q.   Can you see that?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And on what -- what basis was Milosevic, Dragomir Milosevic,

 9     transferred to the 30th Personnel Centre in Belgrade?

10        A.   Well, I can just restate what it says in the document.

11             Basically the grounds for his transfer are the needs of the

12     service.

13        Q.   Now, I have a hard copy that might make it easier.  If I could,

14     with the consent of counsel, give Mr. Starcevic the hard copy, and it

15     might assist him and I can --

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Microphone not activated]

17             MR. HARMON:  Yes.

18        Q.   What I'm interested in, Mr. Starcevic, is -- there's that fourth

19     box down that says he was transferred.  On the far right-hand side, on

20     what basis was that transfer regulated?

21        A.   Could you please tell me what you mean when you say "the fourth

22     box"?  The fourth total or the fourth one that is filled in?

23        Q.   Yeah, from the top to the bottom.

24        A.   [In English] One, two, three, four.  This one.

25        Q.   The one that says, "Transferred for the needs of the service to

Page 7068

 1     the Chief of Staff" --

 2        A.   Okay.

 3        Q.   -- and then I'm direct your attention, Mr. Starcevic --

 4        A.   Okay.

 5        Q.   -- all the way to the right-hand side on that same line and

 6     asking you on what basis his status was regulated?

 7        A.   [Interpretation] From what I can see here, the basis is an order

 8     of the NPU, meaning, [B/C/S spoken], the Chief of Staff of the personnel

 9     administration, and then it's dated the 15th of February, 1994.

10        Q.   Now, if we can go down to the next box where there is text that

11     says:  Placed on the disposal from the date of the announcement of the

12     FRY president's decree.

13             He is placed at the disposal of which unit?

14        A.   At the disposal to the Main Staff of the 30th Personnel Centre,

15     the general of -- the staff of the Army of Yugoslavia.

16        Q.   And, finally, in the last box, it indicates that he ended his

17     professional service based on his own request to exercise the right of an

18     old-age pension, and a presidential degree ended his service; is that

19     correct?

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And who is that?

21             MR. HARMON:  I'm sorry, presidential decree of the federal

22     Republic of Yugoslavia, presidential decree gives the number.  It's dated

23     the 19th of December, 1996.

24        Q.   That is what ended officially his service in the VJ; is that

25     correct?

Page 7069

 1        A.   That is correct.

 2        Q.   All right.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Does this whole document talk about one person?

 4             MR. HARMON:  Yes, sir.  This is the document -- this is from the

 5     personnel file of Dragomir Milosevic.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 7             MR. HARMON:  Now, could we take a look at the next document,

 8     P1756, please.  With the consent of the Court against I have a hard copy,

 9     it might assist Mr. Starcevic.  I can show him this.

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the speaker speak in the microphone,

11     please.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You are requested to speak into the microphone.

13             MR. HARMON:  I said I shared his same problem seeing it in the

14     monitor.  That's why I have hard copies.

15        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, this document is a document from the Main Staff of

16     the Army of the Republika Srpska, dated the 3rd of August, 1996.  It

17     relates to General Milosevic, and it's a proposal to put him at the

18     disposal.  It is directed to the command of the 30th Personnel Centre,

19     and it indicates that because of the reorganisation in the Army of the

20     Republika Srpska, his establishment post had been abolished, and there

21     was no adequate post in which to place him.  And then it says in this

22     document, at the last paragraph, it says:

23             "Based on the above, and in accordance with Article 63, Item 1 of

24     the Law on the Army of Yugoslavia, it is necessary to regulate his status

25     by putting him on the disposal."

Page 7070

 1             I'm just curious, Mr. Starcevic, earlier today, actually, we

 2     looked at Article 63 of the Law on the Army, and we also looked at the

 3     equivalent provision, Article 163 on the Law on the Army of the Republika

 4     Srpska.  Can you assist me, why would a VRS document putting

 5     General Milosevic on disposal in the VRS rely on an Article in the VJ law

 6     and not on the Law of the Republika Srpska?

 7        A.   It's difficult for me to say.  I can just draw some conclusions

 8     which I am afraid may not be relevant because these are the reasons that

 9     the person signing this document is guided by.  I really cannot

10     understand why.

11        Q.   Would it make a difference, in your view, if the reliance on this

12     law, if General Milosevic was a VJ officer as opposed to a VRS officer?

13        A.   This is one of possible conclusions, but just on the basis of

14     this document.

15        Q.   Okay.  Now if we could take a look at P15 -- 1757.

16             Again, I have a -- no, I don't, unfortunately.

17             Unfortunately, Mr. Starcevic, I can't assist you on this.  You

18     will have to rely on the document in front of you on the screen.  I don't

19     have a hard copy.

20             All right.

21        A.   [In English] It's okay.

22        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, this is the presidential decree that the Federal

23     Republic of Yugoslavia presidential decree that ended

24     Dragomir Milosevic's service in the VJ; is that correct?

25        A.   [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct.

Page 7071

 1        Q.   This document, dated 19 December 1996, is dated five weeks after

 2     the decree of Mrs.  Plavsic appointing General Milosevic to the command

 3     of the 7th Corps.  Do you remember we had earlier seen that date on D121?

 4        A.   I think that I do remember, but I'm not exactly connecting the

 5     dates.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Well, I don't want to make this process any longer.

 7     Perhaps we can stipulate with counsel, or I could ask that D121 --

 8             MR. HARMON:  Could D121 be placed on the monitor again.

 9             We have to go into private session.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm trying to see the 19th of December, 1996, in

11     this document before we move it.

12             MR. HARMON:  It's at the top, Your Honour, third line down from

13     the --

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Okay.  I can see it.  Thank you.

15             MR. HARMON:  Just to show you the temporal relationship between

16     this document and D121.  We have to go into private session, we put

17     this --

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

19                           [Private session]

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7072

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15                           [Open session]

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

18             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

19             MR. HARMON:  Could I have Prosecution Exhibit 822 on the monitor,

20     please.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Exhibit number?

22             MR. HARMON:  P822.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             MR. HARMON:

25        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, this is the document that you saw yesterday.  This

Page 7073

 1     is the legal -- the judgement of the legal proceedings that took place in

 2     the Second Municipal Court in Belgrade.  You were asked by my colleague,

 3     Mr. Lukic, whether or not in the text of this document the court, when it

 4     made its decision awarding Mr. Milosevic damages, whether they had

 5     considered any documents from the VRS.  And after reviewing this

 6     judgement, you said you couldn't see any such documents being placed in

 7     the record.

 8             Do you remember that?

 9        A.   Yes, I think that is what I said.

10        Q.   And, in fact, this litigation was a litigation between the --

11     Mr. Milosevic and the state, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; isn't

12     that correct?

13        A.   Yes, that is correct.

14        Q.   And if Mr. Milosevic was a member of the VRS, Federal Republic of

15     Yugoslavia, if that was in their interest, could have introduced that

16     sort of evidence, couldn't it?

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What sort of evidence?

18             MR. HARMON:  Evidence that Mr. Milosevic was a member of the VRS.

19        Q.   Is that correct, Mr. Starcevic?

20        A.   I assume so, yes.

21        Q.   In fact, if you look at this judgement, if you look at it

22     carefully, neither Mr. Milosevic nor the state asserted that

23     Mr. Milosevic was a member of the VRS.

24             And let me direct your attention, if I could, to page 3 of the

25     English version; and in the B/C/S version, that would be found ... I

Page 7074

 1     believe that is on page 3 as well.  In the English version, let's -- if

 2     we can scroll up, please, and I hope that, in the B/C/S version, this

 3     same text, starting at the bottom, which says:

 4             "The plaintiff, Dragomir Milosevic, was heard as a party to these

 5     proceedings."

 6             I believe -- do you see that equivalent text, Mr. Starcevic?

 7        A.   Yes, on the next page.

 8        Q.   Okay.  What this -- what -- what this text says is that

 9     Mr. Milosevic was a member of these -- was heard as a party to these

10     proceedings, and what he said was that:

11             "Before the establishment of the state of the SRJ, professional

12     JNA officers who originated from Serbia were invited to state in writing

13     whether they wanted to return to Serbia -- since that -- that since he

14     had been born in Serbia, in Murgas, Ub municipality, the plaintiff

15     stating in writing that he wanted to live and work in Serbia as a

16     professional soldier and was accepted so that he was assigned to VP 3001

17     Belgrade, but a decision was made in the form of a written order that, as

18     a member of the military -- this Military Post, he would serve in

19     Sarajevo as a member of VP 7598."

20             Now, Mr. Starcevic, let's see what the state asserted in this

21     context.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Okay.

24             MR. HARMON:  If we go to page 8 in the English version; and page

25     3 of the -- page 6 of the B/C/S.  I'm referring to - let me see - the top

Page 7075

 1     paragraph in the English.

 2        Q.   And for your purposes, it should be the -- I can direct your

 3     attention -- should be the bottom paragraph in the Serbian -- in the

 4     B/C/S.

 5             In this it says that:

 6             "Evidence was presented in written form primarily a report."  And

 7     gives a confidential number of Military Post, 3001 Belgrade, and it gives

 8     a date which states that according to the data from the official records

 9     of 1790 Belgrade:

10             "Major-General Dragomir Milosevic, retired, was a member of the

11     former JNA and the Army of Yugoslavia without interruption from 27

12     July 1960 to 31 December 1996 when his professional military service was

13     terminated at his own request, to exercise his right of old-age pension,"

14     and it goes on.

15             So if we go back to this judgement, let me ask you,

16     Mr. Starcevic, as a lawyer, had Mr. Milosevic been a member of the VRS

17     and not a member of the VJ, would he have been able to entertain his

18     lawsuit in the Belgrade municipal court?

19        A.   No, no, he would not.

20        Q.   Okay.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The next paragraph deals with what you two

22     gentlemen are talking about.

23             MR. HARMON:  The next paragraph, indeed, Your Honour, it does.

24     It's part of the judgement.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  No objection [Microphone not activated].

Page 7076

 1             MR. HARMON:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Objection that is being considered in that next

 3     paragraph.

 4             MR. HARMON:  Okay, yes.  Thank you.

 5        Q.   Now, sir, let me turn to some different documents, if I can.  You

 6     were shown some documents that related to General Mladic's special

 7     compensation for service in special circumstances.  The first document

 8     you were shown was P741, and if we can have that on the monitor please.

 9             This document you're familiar with, you have seen now at least

10     twice in these proceedings, Mr. Starcevic.  This is the decision of

11     General Perisic on determining the task and territory where services are

12     performed under special circumstances.  Let me just -- just to reorient

13     you a little bit.  If we could go down to the -- up -- scroll up a little

14     bit on the B/C/S version, yes, and we could focus on the last

15     paragraph in English.

16             This -- you're familiar with this document, Mr. Starcevic.

17        A.   Yes, yes.

18        Q.   You will see in terms of defining where service is performed

19     under difficult circumstances, it sets forth five sub-points, the fifth

20     sub-point being the territory where members of the 30th and

21     40th Personnel Centres are in service.  Do you see that?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Now let me show you some decisions that we also looked at -- you

24     looked at with Mr. Lukic.  The first part --

25             MR. HARMON:  Could I have Prosecution Exhibit 1810 on the

Page 7077

 1     monitor, please.

 2        Q.   And I want it clarify a point with this document and one of your

 3     answers you gave to Mr. Lukic.  It's found at page 6957, lines 16 to 21.

 4             So this document that's in front of us -- before I turn to the

 5     testimony that you gave, before I turn to the testimony, this document is

 6     the decision of the Military Post 3001, awarding General Mladic special

 7     compensation.  And this really has -- the decision reflects or

 8     concentrates on three different bases or three different compensations.

 9             You will see in subpart A the amount of 20 per cent; subpart B,

10     there is an reference to compensation -- increases compensation, there is

11     a reference to Article 24 in the decision of the Military Post 3001, and

12     it gives a date and refreshes number; and in -- thirdly, it gives an

13     amount of four per cent basic increase in salary.

14             Now my first question to you is:  In the preamble, it sets forth,

15     does it not, on what basis this decision is founded?  Is that -- what is

16     that basis on which this decision is founded, according to the preamble?

17        A.   That's Article 156 of the Law on the Yugoslav Army and the

18     decision of the Chief of Staff which governs the methodology of

19     exercising the rights --

20        Q.   Okay --

21        A.    -- in question.

22        Q.   Now, if you could go to the second page, please, of this

23     document, you will see that under subpart B of this, when it refers to --

24     the second part which is the second paragraph in English.  I hope it

25     appears in your document; it may not, actually.

Page 7078

 1             Does it -- do you see in your text, Mr. Starcevic, the increase

 2     of compensation stipulated under B, and I think we've found it now.

 3             Now, you were asked the following question by Mr. Lukic, and this

 4     is where I need the clarification.

 5             You were asked the question:

 6             "And under B, it says the basis for issuing this decision by

 7     Military Post 3001 is a decision of the commander of Military Post 3001;

 8     am I right? "

 9             And your answer was, "Yes."

10             Let me ask you this question:  Mr. Starcevic, is that what this

11     says or does this subpart B say that the increase in compensation, under

12     B, in the disposition of this decision has been recognised as he is

13     serving with the unit covered by the decision of the commander, and it

14     goes on.

15             Is the decision -- do you understand my question, Mr. Starcevic?

16     There is an slightly different meaning between the two.  I'm just seeking

17     out what is the correct meaning of this.  Was the decision to award

18     compensation under B based on the decision; or was it because he was

19     serving in a unit that is covered by the decision?

20        A.   Well, I find it hard to understand your question.  In the

21     statement of reasons that you referred to, it says that this increase,

22     stipulated under sub-item B, has been granted due to the fact that he was

23     carrying out his duties in the unit that is covered by the decision of

24     the commander of the VP 3001.

25             Therefore, this is only an explanation of this increase that was

Page 7079

 1     granted under subparagraph B.

 2        Q.   That's the clarification I was seeking.

 3             Now, if we could go to the third document that was shown in this

 4     case to you; I just want to identify which unit that was.

 5             MR. HARMON:  If we could go to P2046, please.

 6        Q.   This is the decision, Mr. Starcevic, that was referred to in the

 7     previous document, and which -- in which unit was General Mladic serving

 8     at the time he received this special compensation?  If you refer to --

 9     under the words "decision," paragraph 1, it would give you the answer to

10     that question.

11        A.   Military Post 7572, Sarajevo.

12        Q.   All right.  Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Starcevic.

13             If we can turn to a different document.

14             MR. HARMON:  If I can have -- let me just check.

15                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

16             MR. HARMON:  Can we go into private session, please.

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

18                           [Private session]

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7080

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22                           [Open session]

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

25             Yes, Mr. Harmon.

Page 7081

 1             MR. HARMON:

 2        Q.   Could we look at two documents you looked at, Mr. Starcevic.

 3             MR. HARMON:  P363 is the first document.

 4        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, you were asked some questions about particular

 5     words that appeared in this particular document, those words being found

 6     in the second paragraph under certificate.  And the words you were asked

 7     about was:  He was wounded carrying out combat activities securing the

 8     SRJ state border.

 9             Now, Mr. Starcevic, one of the questions that you were asked by

10     Mr. Lukic was --

11             MR. HARMON:  I'm sorry, before we do that, could we also take a

12     look at Prosecution Exhibit 557.

13                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

14             MR. HARMON:  I'm sorry to bounce around like this, Your Honour.

15     I'm told this document is under seal.  So we have to go back into private

16     session.

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

18                           [Private session]

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7082











11 Page 7082 redacted. Private session.















Page 7083

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25                           [Open session]

Page 7084

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

 3             We will take a break and come back at a quarter to 6.00.

 4             Court adjourned.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 5.17 p.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 5.47 p.m.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Harmon.

 8             MR. HARMON:

 9        Q.   We're almost there, Mr. Starcevic.

10             Let me ask you, in your earlier testimony, Mr. Starcevic, you

11     indicated that there were three situations under Yugoslav Army law where

12     persons in the VJ could be sent abroad.  One was -- they could be sent to

13     diplomatic or consular offices; second, they could be sent to duties

14     relating to international agreement, peacekeeping, for example; and the

15     third was, they could be sent for education.

16             My question, Mr. Starcevic, is when VJ soldiers are sent abroad

17     to participate in peacekeeping operations, who has the disciplinary

18     authority, the sending state or the receiving organisation?

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Lukic.

20             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] What Mr. Harmon has put to the

21     witness now is related to the examination-in-chief and not to

22     cross-examination.  I would appreciate a reference to my

23     cross-examination, otherwise, I have an objection to this line of

24     questioning.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

Page 7085

 1             MR. HARMON:  I'll withdraw the question, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 3             MR. HARMON:  I have no further questions Your Honour.

 4        Q.   Mr. Starcevic, thank you very much.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I see a smile on your face, Mr. Starcevic.

 8                           Questioned by the Court:

 9             JUDGE DAVID:  Mr. Starcevic, at the beginning of your testimony,

10     on page 14, lines 21, 22, on the 8th June, the Prosecution has presented

11     you in Exhibit 1827 a so-called warning.

12             You said at page 15, lines 13 to 17, in relation to this

13     document:

14             "It does not have the legal significance of a warning.  It is a

15     colloquial act or document, advice, proposal, or recommendation."

16             Later on, you said, in response to Judge Moloto's question, at

17     page 18, line 1 to 6:

18             "Warning is, in a way, a question of good service or an advice.

19     Perhaps there could be some influence on the quality of the relationship

20     between the person who is issuing the warning and/or the side that is

21     issuing the warning, and the side that does not adhere to the warning."

22             My question, Mr. Starcevic, is the following:  How this

23     colloquial act or advice or recommendation fits into the functions given

24     by Article 175 of the Yugoslav Army to the commander in chief when speaks

25     this article of regulation, order, instructions, and other documents as

Page 7086

 1     part of the responsibilities or authority of the chief of General Staff

 2     of the army?

 3             Is that clear, my question, to you?

 4        A.   Yes, sir, it is clear.

 5             But I'm afraid that, when you quoted the first answer, either I

 6     was not accurate or there may have, perhaps, been some misunderstanding

 7     in terms of interpretation, I didn't mean to say, as I have been quoted,

 8     that it does not have a legal significance of a warning.

 9             What I simply wanted to say was that a warning does not have a

10     legal significance or a legal character or nature.  That was the essence

11     of what I wanted to say.

12             Therefore, a warning is not a document envisaged by the law, nor

13     does it require a proper legal procedure to be issued.  There is no such

14     category as a warning among the powers vested in the chief of General

15     Staff or any other officer that is authorised to command, and precisely

16     for that reason, this is not a legal document but, rather, a colloquial

17     document issued by someone who is giving a warning to another person is

18     probably wishing to help in solving a problem, or to draw this person's

19     attention to potential adverse consequences in the event of this warning

20     not being heeded.

21             JUDGE DAVID:  So, Mr. Starcevic, your conclusion is, if I

22     understood well your answer, that this act does not enter into the

23     enumeration or comprehensiveness of Article 175.

24             Is that correct or ...

25        A.   That's correct.

Page 7087

 1             JUDGE DAVID:  My second question:  You have said yesterday

 2     something that, perhaps, I would like you to elaborate in relation to

 3     this document.

 4             You said at page 86, line 2 to 6:

 5             "The crux of the problem is legal status in factual situations,"

 6     referring yourself to the understanding of many -- many orders or

 7     commands, et cetera, that should be, if I understood you, not only from a

 8     formal viewpoint from the letter of the law but from the factual

 9     structural situation.

10             Could you elaborate?  I don't want to confuse, you but it

11     interested me very much your characterization, you know?  Or a principle

12     of interpretation, which is to say, the crux of the matter is legal

13     status in factual situations.

14             Could you apply this construction, I will call it your

15     theoretical construction, Mr. Starcevic, to the problem inside?

16        A.   I should probably be made aware to what question I gave that

17     answer.  What was the question, I would like to know.

18             JUDGE DAVID:  If I'm not mistaken, you were clarifying certain

19     situations of regulations and these positions that needed some

20     articulation between what the norm [phoen] said and what the particular

21     situations of the case was.

22             My question, in this regard, has to do with the factual effects

23     of a warning.  Could you, in your experience, elaborate what could be the

24     factual effect of a warning if you, in the circumstances that you knew,

25     beyond the lack of legal validity, you already hint when -- into the

Page 7088

 1     problem when you said influence, you know, you said here exactly:

 2             "Perhaps there could be some influence on the quality of the

 3     relationship between the person who is issuing the warning and -- or the

 4     side that has issued the warning and the side that does not adhere to the

 5     warning."

 6             Page 18, lines 1 to 6.

 7        A.   I think that now I understand your point.

 8             So, even though a warning does not have any legal foundation or

 9     significance - in other words, the one who issues it, cannot invoke any

10     authority under which he is entitled to give this warning, because this

11     kind of authority simply does not exist.

12             Therefore, the consequence of issuing such an order --

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction, such a warning.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- does not constitute a legal

15     obligation to the receiving side.  However, in a factual situation, this

16     may lead, even to a deterioration of the relationship between the issuing

17     party and the receiving party of the warning and if the receiving party

18     ignores this warning.

19             I'm trying to think of an example to explain this in a more

20     simple and easier way.  If, for instance, within the framework of

21     cooperation between police forces between two countries, these

22     relationships are not legally regulated, but, nevertheless, the police in

23     one country acquires intelligence that, for example, in this other state

24     a terrorist group is being active and making preparations for committing

25     a terrorist act.  In the country which is sending the warning, the only

Page 7089

 1     possibility that they have at their disposal is just to send a warning to

 2     the police of another country of what is in the offing.  If the police

 3     does not take this warning seriously, at least to such an extent to

 4     launch an investigation and eventually this terrorist act does happen,

 5     one can imagine that this will affect the quality of relationships

 6     between the two parties.

 7             So that is what I meant when I say that in a factual situation, a

 8     warning may result in a deterioration of relationships, and, quite vice

 9     versa, if a warning is heeded and adhered to, can improve these

10     relations.

11             JUDGE DAVID:  Thank you very much, Mr. Starcevic.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Another example of the factual situation, would it

14     also be that if the warning is not heeded, the consequences against which

15     the person is being warned might eventuate, in which case, there may be

16     tragedy; or if they are heeded, that tragedy may be avoided.  That would

17     be --

18        A.   Yes, yes.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  Any questions arising?

20             MR. HARMON:  No, Your Honour.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Any questions arising, Mr. Lukic?

22             MR. LUKIC:  No, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

24             Mr. Starcevic, thank you so much.  You have come here twice in

25     this case.  We thank you so much for the time you have given to the

Page 7090

 1     trial.  We've come now to the end of your testimony.  You are excused.

 2     You may stand down.  Please travel back home well.  I hope you have some

 3     rest before you start your duties back home.

 4             Thank you very much.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 7                           [The witness withdrew]

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Harmon.

 9             MR. HARMON:  That concludes our evidence for this week.  We have

10     no additional witnesses for today or tomorrow.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  In that event, then, the case stands

12     adjourned to Monday, the 15th of June, at quarter past 2.00 in the

13     afternoon, Courtroom I.

14             Court adjourned.

15                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.00 p.m.,

16                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 15th day of June,

17                           2009, at 2.15 p.m.