1 Thursday, 28 February 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 8.31 a.m.

5 [The accused entered court]

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the

7 case.

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

9 IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 Today is Thursday, the 28th of February, 2008. Good morning to

12 the Prosecution. Good morning, Mr. Theunens, our expert witness. Good

13 morning, Mr. Seselj, and good morning to everyone assisting us in this

14 courtroom.

15 Let me give you some information.

16 We need to complete the testimony of Mr. Theunens today.

17 Mr. Seselj has one hour and 12 minutes left. In other words, if there is

18 no delay because of procedural matters, we should or we could be able to

19 complete the cross-examination before the first break. There might be

20 some re-examination, I don't know, but Mr. Marcussen, yes, is indicating

21 that it's quite likely.

22 In any case, after the break, we'll resume the hearing, but then a

23 technical matter will arise, because the following witness is a protected

24 witness, and we'll need another break to take the necessary arrangements.

25 In any case, we'll have to stop at 12.00, because at 12.00 I have to

1 attend the plenary, the Judges' plenary. Three amendments to the Rules

2 are on the agenda of the plenary, so I should attend the plenary, as well

3 as my fellow judge, Judge Harhoff.

4 We'll stop around 12:00, and we'll resume in this case on next

5 Tuesday.

6 Mr. Marcussen.

7 MR. MARCUSSEN: A very brief point in relation to the translation

8 issue that came up yesterday. This was an issue of whether, in Exhibit

9 number 1814 -- 1841, sorry, the words "zvanje" in B/C/S should be

10 translated as "rank" or "title" or what the correct translation was. We

11 received a message from CLSS. Rather than clarifying the transcript, they

12 have sent us a message clarifying their view on the translation of this

13 particular exhibit. The message reads:

14 "According to the main bilingual Serbian-English dictionary, the

15 word 'zvanje' can be translated as 'title,''rank,''profession,''calling,'

16 'vocation.' In the context, we would favour the word 'title'. An

17 amended translation is attached."

18 What I propose to do is, with leave of the Court, to change the

19 e-court and give to Your Honours and the accused a revised translation of

20 the document where the word "rank" is replaced with "title"; but as the

21 document is admitted, I can obviously not tamper with what is already

22 admitted on record without permission of Your Honours.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. CLSS seems to be

24 confirming Mr. Seselj's version. It should be translated by "title,"

25 then.

1 Mr. Seselj.

2 MR. MARCUSSEN: We have copies here we can distribute. As Your

3 Honours have also received hard copies, maybe everyone should have a copy.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that explanation is

5 not complete. The interpreters working here are people with very

6 limited -- a limited general knowledge level and they can't understand

7 many things. They would have to be more proficient in military

8 terminology. In military terminology, "rank," in military Yugoslav

9 terminology, "rank" and "title" could never be synonyms. "Zvanje" can

10 sometimes be for rank but not military rank. You can have the calling of

11 a clergyman, for example, zvanje in the calling of a clergyman, and then

12 you can say the bishop led the liturgy in his capacity of zvanje. But

13 when it comes to restricted military service, then rank and title, zvanje,

14 can never be synonyms and any Serbian military expert will confirm that.

15 Now those translators of yours don't seem to have any general

16 education, quite obviously, and then they make these extremely big and

17 significant mistakes.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] According to what I understand

19 from the memo read out by Mr. Marcussen, CLSS used several dictionaries to

20 look into the matter, and they believe that the word as it is used in the

21 Serbian language may be translated by "title," but may, in some cases, be

22 translated by the word "rank," and so on and so forth. However, CLSS

23 concluded that the most appropriate translation would be "title." That's

24 why Mr. Marcussen is proposing that we should replace "rank" by "title."

25 We've taken due note of what you've stated, as you can see.

1 Yes, Mr. Seselj.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But this explanation, given in that

3 way, follows the ambitions of the Prosecution, because the Prosecution

4 would like to have it presented -- well, it wasn't a mistake. The "rank"

5 was used instead of "title," but what they're saying is, "In future, we're

6 not going to use 'rank' as a synonym for 'zvanje,' 'title'." I insist that

7 in military terminology, "cin" [phoen] meaning rank and "zvanje" meaning

8 title could never have been synonyms, and the explanation given by your

9 translators is unacceptable. They're not sufficiently professional to

10 provide that type of explanation.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you've said is now in the

12 transcript.

13 Mr. Marcussen.

14 MR. MARCUSSEN: No, sorry, I don't think I need to ...

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

17 After considering the matter, the Trial Chamber has decided that

18 in the transcript, the English word "rank" should be translated -- should

19 be replaced by the word "title." Whenever something is translated by

20 "rank," it should be replaced by "title."

21 Before giving the floor to Mr. Seselj, I have a question to ask

22 the witness.

23 WITNESS: REYNAUD THEUNENS [Resumed]

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the next few days, the trial

25 of Mr. Simatovic and Stanisic will start. They are mentioned in the

1 indictment as part of the joint criminal enterprise. I would like to know

2 whether you worked in the Simatovic and Stanisic case.

3 THE WITNESS: Indeed, Your Honours, and I was also, in that case,

4 asked by the Prosecution to compile a report on -- in that -- for that

5 case on the participation of forces of the Ministry of Interior of the

6 Republic of Serbia in the conflict in Croatia, 1991-1992, and

7 Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1992-1995.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. I just wanted you to

9 confirm this for me.

10 Mr. Seselj, you have one hour and 12 minutes left.

11 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj: [Continued]

12 Q. Mr. Theunens, did you ride your bike yesterday?

13 A. Indeed, Your Honours. I'm very pleased that in The Hague, I can

14 commute by bicycle.

15 Q. Why don't you answer my question. Were you on your bike

16 yesterday, yes or no?

17 A. Your Honours --

18 MR. MARCUSSEN: The witness did answer the question. He said,

19 "Yes."

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the answer is, "Yes."

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The interpretation I got was not an

22 affirmative answer. In the interpretation, all I heard was that the

23 witness was pleased that in The Hague, he could commute by bicycle, not

24 that he rode his bicycle yesterday. And I'm telling you, your

25 interpreters are not doing their job properly. I've just received the

1 affirmative answer now by the Prosecutor.

2 Q. Now, Mr. Theunens, while you were riding your bike yesterday, did

3 anybody draw your attention to the fact that what I put to you yesterday

4 was true, the fact I put to you yesterday, that General

5 Aleksandar Vasiljevic was appointed as -- was named in the indictment

6 against Slobodan Milosevic as a member of the inner circle of the joint

7 criminal enterprise, whereas his name does not appear in my indictment as

8 a participant in the joint criminal enterprise. Did anybody confirm to

9 you the truthfulness of that fact?

10 A. Your Honours, I'm confused by the question, because this is the

11 first time in my recollection this question is put to me, so I don't

12 understand the link with anybody -- of communicating with me while I'm

13 riding on the bicycle on that topic.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj is a man of great

15 wit, and he wants to know whether you can confirm that Mr. Vasiljevic was

16 at first mentioned in the indictment, but then was not mentioned in his

17 own indictment.

18 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I remember that Aleksandar Vasiljevic

19 was mentioned in the Milosevic indictment, but I'm not 100 per cent

20 certain about the members of the alleged JCE that are identified in the

21 indictment against Mr. Seselj, because that's outside my sphere of

22 competence.

23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

24 Q. As these professional services of the Tribunal are capacitated in

25 order to be handled -- to be able to handle electronic devices, I don't

1 suppose that it's a problem for them to present that portion of the

2 Milosevic indictment on our screens.

3 Mr. President, with your permission, I'd like to make a comment

4 about the question earlier on and your reactions. I did not intend to be

5 witty at all. I am quite convinced that in these proceedings, a new

6 professional term has come into being, which in future will be customary

7 in legal terminology, it would appear, and that in future, in other

8 similar trials, the term "riding a bike" will be used -- the phrase

9 "riding a bike" will be used to denote subsequent influence exerted on the

10 witness during the break, which is absolutely prohibited. So that was the

11 sense of my question. But if we're not able to have this portion of the

12 indictment against Milosevic up on our screens, let me tell you that it

13 was the Croatian and Bosnian indictment, so-called.

14 I'd like to move on.

15 Q. Mr. Theunens, how many times did you encounter -- you don't have

16 the right to comment when I address the Trial Chamber. I'm just beginning

17 to ask you my question now and address you.

18 How many times, Mr. Theunens, did you meet General

19 Aleksandar Vasiljevic?

20 A. Your Honours, I would still like to address the comment made by

21 Mr. Seselj, because I see it as an attack on my credibility.

22 Since I --

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please prevent that, Judge. He does

24 not have the right to comment on my addressing the Trial Chamber.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Seselj. The

1 question seemed to be totally irrelevant to me, and I thought that

2 Mr. Seselj was being witty. And whether he was asking if whilst riding

3 your bicycle you suddenly remembered that Mr. Vasiljevic was mentioned in

4 the indictment, but then Mr. Seselj added something more. He seemed to

5 imply that somebody yesterday may have tried to influence you, and this I

6 find extremely disturbing. That's why I would like to ask you the

7 following:

8 When you left this Tribunal, whilst you were riding your bicycle,

9 even, did somebody call you to tell you, "Hey, be careful about this

10 General Vasiljevic matter"?

11 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, since I started my testimony on the

12 13th of February, nobody from the OTP, nor from any other organisation,

13 has contacted me to address issues related to my testimony, and I think

14 it's very important to emphasise that.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, fine.

16 Mr. Seselj, please proceed.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I asked the question. I asked

18 Mr. Theunens how many times he met General Vasiljevic.

19 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I met General Vasiljevic when he was

20 interviewed as a suspect in Belgrade. Now, I'm not sure whether that was

21 in 2002 or 2003. And then I also met General Vasiljevic in The Hague

22 during his proofing for his testimony in the Milosevic trial.

23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Do you know, Mr. Theunens, why I was never provided with a

25 transcript of the interview of General Vasiljevic as a suspect, although

1 during that questioning he mentioned my name and the volunteers of the

2 Serbian Radical Party?

3 A. Your Honours, such matters are obviously outside of my competence.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you will recall, I'm

5 sure, your instructions that I be provided with all the confidential --

6 or, rather, all the material that the Prosecution has in its possession

7 which could be relevant to my defence in any sense, and you have another

8 document here in addition to the questioning of General Panic and the

9 interview of General Vasiljevic in the capacity of a suspect that I have

10 not been informed about at all.

11 Q. Mr. Theunens --

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Seselj. We'll

13 now turn to the OTP in regard to this.

14 Apparently, and it's new to me, apparently the witness took part

15 in the proofing of General Vasiljevic. He was there also during the

16 proofing of General Vasiljevic who apparently was heard as a suspect, and

17 apparently the transcript was not disclosed to the accused because,

18 according to the accused, there could be exculpatory elements in that

19 transcript.

20 Mr. Marcussen, can you answer this or not?

21 MR. MARCUSSEN: The only thing I can answer right now is that the

22 accused has received, in B/C/S, the transcript of the Milosevic hearings,

23 and he would therefore have received the B/C/S version of

24 General Vasiljevic's testimony in the Milosevic case. I would need a

25 little bit of time to find out what material relating to

1 General Vasiljevic had been disclosed to the accused, so I cannot answer

2 that right now. And, as usual, I'd like to make sure that we get you the

3 right information on this.

4 I think the accused said that he had a right to receive this

5 because there had been an order that anything that mentions General --

6 sorry, anything that mentions his name should be given to him, and as I

7 said, we will have to look into it. But I'm not sure that he is saying

8 that he needs to get this because the material is exculpatory.

9 And from what the --

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, one follow-up

11 question.

12 General Vasiljevic testified in the Milosevic case. He probably

13 made a written statement, a signed statement, and this statement, I

14 suppose, must have been disclosed to Mr. Seselj. Mr. Seselj was probably

15 given both the written statement and the transcript of the testimony.

16 Isn't that the case?

17 MR. MARCUSSEN: Now, we are checking the records a bit on the fly.

18 What I can say is that on the 28th of January, 2005, the accused was

19 provided a CD with the suspect interview on it, which he refused. I'd

20 like -- maybe if you will allow me maybe after the next break to inform

21 you about the status of whether or not there exists a transcription of

22 this particular interview or whether we have the same situation as we have

23 with the Panic interview, that the OTP has not transcribed this particular

24 suspect interview, and we will also try to look into the issue of whether

25 or not there exists a statement. But as I said, there have definitely

1 been attempts to disclose this material to the accused in electronic form.

2 If we have the transcripts, I'll be able to get back to you, but I'll need

3 a little more time to find out about that.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe I can identify what's

5 at stake here.

6 It so happens that I was a member of the Pre-Trial Chamber

7 presided by Judge Agius, and then after a number of developments I became

8 the Pre-Trial Judge in this case. There was, indeed, a major problem in

9 this case.

10 The accused did not want to have a standby counsel, and he refused

11 to accept any CD. He refused all CDs. And when I started working on this

12 case, a number of decisions were made, asking the Prosecution to disclose

13 in hard copy what was to be disclosed to the accused, including everything

14 related to Rule 68(A)(i).

15 It was also stated that the accused was authorised to provide key

16 words to the Prosecution to make a search in the 207.000 pages, because he

17 had been told that these 207.000 pages may be exculpatory evidence.

18 That's the situation.

19 Mr. Marcussen.

20 MR. MARCUSSEN: Just as the issue was with Panic, if the situation

21 is that we only have the audio version of -- audio or video version of the

22 suspect interview, then these sort of things would not be included in the

23 207.000 pages or this big volume of pages that we are talking about. But

24 after the break, I will -- I hope I'm able to bring some more clarity over

25 what written material exists.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Mr. Marcussen has

2 presented an untruth. He said that I was provided with the entire

3 transcript of the testimony of General Aleksandar Vasiljevic in the

4 Slobodan Milosevic trial. That's not true. The OTP provides me

5 successively with transcripts of testimonies of only those people whom

6 they plan to call in this trial as Prosecution witnesses, and as far as

7 things stand now, the OTP does not plan to bring in General

8 Aleksandar Vasiljevic as a witness in this trial.

9 Everything they have provided me with and where there are portions

10 of General Aleksandar Vasiljevic's testimony are books which were

11 published by Natasa Kandic in her fund for humanitarian law, or whatever

12 it's called, and they're books which contain just the public parts of the

13 interview of the Prosecution witness in the Slobodan Milosevic trial, and

14 General Vasiljevic testified in part in open session and in part in

15 private sessions, secretly. I read what was stated in public, in open

16 session, but it was only in several -- on several occasions that he asked

17 to move into private session.

18 So the information provided to you by Mr. Marcussen is quite

19 obviously not true, and I can continue if you wish.

20 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the books that the accused is

21 referring to is reproducing it in transcript form the material that's

22 included in the book by the Humanitarian Law Centre, and that has been a

23 practical way of getting all this material transcribed to the accused.

24 Mr. Vasiljevic is not on the Prosecution witness list in this

25 case. If the accused has an interest in receiving closed session material

1 relating to this witness, in particular, he is at liberty to make an

2 application to the Tribunal for access to the closed session part of the

3 testimony, and he -- the competent Judges will decide on this. This is

4 not a disclosure problem that arises from anything the Office of the

5 Prosecutor had done.

6 Now, secondly, the Prosecution has made an effort to disclose all

7 of this material to the accused. It is the accused who refuses to review,

8 either himself or with his -- I don't remember if it's 28 or 26 assistants

9 that he lists on all his filing. He's refusing to make use of the

10 material that's being given to him in order to prepare his defence. If

11 this particular issue had been something he seriously was concerned about

12 for the cross-examination of this witness, he would have had ample time to

13 raise this issue before today so we could have dealt with it, rather than

14 spending the Court's time on issues like this that could have been dealt

15 with before.

16 Thank you, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, we've already spent

18 25 minutes on procedural matters. Mr. Marcussen is absolutely right, and

19 that's exactly what I had in mind when he started to speak. How come your

20 own expert, General Delic, who prepared this report for you, how come he

21 didn't notify you a long time ago that it was essential for you to get all

22 the material related to that particular general because he was in charge

23 of the 1st Military District, and why didn't you say to your expert then,

24 "We don't have the documents," and then you would have seen that it was

25 absolutely essential to ask the Prosecution for these documents. That's

1 what you should have done, instead of waiting the very end of the

2 cross-examination to say that you don't have this document.

3 You could have received this document a long time ago if you had

4 made the proper application. All this would not have happened if the

5 Rules had provided that disclosure is monitored by the Pre-Trial Judge,

6 because if the Rule was organised that way, then the Pre-Trial Judge would

7 have realised how important the role of the general was and that all

8 material pertaining to this general should be disclosed to the accused.

9 But since my predecessors decided that disclosure should not come under

10 any type of monitoring or control, well, we are faced with that type of

11 issues and problems, and we are wasting a great deal of time, time that

12 could have been more profitably spent on the cross-examination or on the

13 review of documents.

14 Mr. Seselj, you have the floor. The Prosecution is telling us

15 that they'll answer later on, and as in the case of General Panic, they

16 say that they will disclose everything in writing.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. President, I'm surprised

18 by this observation of yours. General Bozidar Delic was not indispensable

19 for me to realise that I needed to use the entire testimony of General

20 Zivota Panic, or rather his entire suspect interview. But yesterday or

21 the day before, I told you that on the 4th of October, 2004, at the status

22 conference that was held then, I asked for the entire transcripts of the

23 interview with General Zivota Panic. The court administration can check

24 this immediately and by the break they can tell you whether what I'm

25 saying is correct. That was the first time I requested this. After that,

1 I'm sure I requested it at least two or three times and even mentioned it

2 in some written submissions, but there's no need for me to search for that

3 now because I have reliable information that I did ask for it on the 4th

4 of October, 2000, at the status conference held then.

5 THE INTERPRETER: 2004, interpreter's correction.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Secondly, Mr. Marcussen says that if

7 I feel I need the transcripts of closed session testimony from the

8 Milosevic case, I should apply to the Court. But why should I apply to

9 the Court when I have no information indicating that in that closed

10 session in the Milosevic case, General Vasiljevic mentioned my name or the

11 volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party? I don't have that information,

12 but I'm sure that he spoke about this in his suspect interview. And

13 today, for the first time, we have heard that he actually was interviewed

14 as a suspect and then he was not indicted. Instead of that, he's being

15 used to do certain jobs in the OTP, to testify against Milosevic, and now

16 we'll see how the OTP used him in the case against me.

17 By your leave, I'd like to continue with my cross-examination. I

18 have the least reason to waste time. You can see that I don't like taking

19 the floor.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, you may proceed.

21 Just a comment I'd like to make.

22 General Vasiljevic could be an important witness. The Prosecution

23 could have called this person to testify. The Prosecution is entitled to

24 call the witnesses it wishes to call to testify. When the time comes for

25 the presentation of your case, nothing prevents you from asking this

1 witness to come. You can start off with non-leading questions, but if he

2 appears to be hostile, in that case you can put questions to him which

3 could be leading questions. In that case, this would be part of your

4 cross-examination.

5 So this is a possibility you have, even if, unfortunately, it

6 seems that there are a number of documents which have not been disclosed

7 to you. It is not too late. A trial starts at a particular point and

8 ends at a particular point. We haven't reached that end point yet, and

9 you have plenty of time to address a number of topics relating to your

10 case; i.e., the role played by General Vasiljevic, amongst others.

11 So you have the floor now. You have an hour and 12 minutes left

12 for the remainder of your cross-examination.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I call General Vasiljevic in the

14 Defence case, I will have to apply for a subpoena, because there's no

15 other way I can get to General Vasiljevic, but that doesn't matter now.

16 Q. Mr. Theunens, in your report you included an exhibit, 1913, and a

17 piece of information. I will not talk about it because it's being treated

18 as a confidential document still. But the Prosecution has confirmed that

19 it obtained that document from General Vasiljevic. Is that correct?

20 A. Your Honours, it would be helpful if we could see the document,

21 just to refresh my memory.

22 Q. That's the unsigned document, without a date, without a stamp,

23 without a heading, and the number is 1913.

24 A. Your Honours, I thank Mr. Seselj for the clarification. I believe

25 now that I remember about which document we are talking. And I knew that

1 the document had been provided by a sensitive source, but if the

2 Prosecution confirms it, the sensitive source is Mr. Vasiljevic, then I

3 agree with that.

4 Q. While writing your expert report, you did not know about the

5 source of this document; is that right?

6 A. Your Honours, as I said, I knew that the document had been

7 provided by --

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.

9 Mr. Marcussen, the Registrar is asking me, as far as this document

10 is concerned, which comes from a sensitive source, whether you would like

11 part of the transcript to be redacted or do you feel that this is

12 pointless now, it doesn't matter if everything is in the public domain

13 now?

14 MR. MARCUSSEN: I think General Vasiljevic has -- I think it's

15 fine for this particular document. There has been so much talk about this

16 now that we can leave it on the public record.

17 I would respectfully request the accused, in future, when he gets

18 to these kind of issues, to make sure that we avoid revealing sources, and

19 when discussing who else had been giving evidence to the Prosecution, that

20 we do this in private session. I think General Vasiljevic, if I can put

21 it in these terms, is strong enough to put up with this, so let's just

22 move on.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

24 Mr. Seselj, when you address this kind of issue in the future,

25 please let us know beforehand. Let us know what kind of topic you wish to

1 address so that we can move into private session. Nothing prevents us

2 from going into open session after that, but we have to abide by the

3 procedure in these matters.

4 I'll give you the floor back now.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think the OTP

6 treated only the contents of the document as confidential. If you recall

7 from my statement at the beginning of the trial, the name of

8 General Aleksandar Vasiljevic has not been confidential. I mentioned his

9 name in the pre-trial phase, and Madam Christine intervened very

10 energetically, and you said I could not use the names of potential OTP

11 witnesses in public session. And I asked you directly whether, in my

12 statement of the accused at the beginning of the trial, I could mention

13 the name of General Vasiljevic, who was the chief of security of the JNA.

14 This is just a summary. It's not what was said literally. And you said,

15 "Well, of course, you can, because he was a public figure. He was a

16 high-ranking officer," and this was all in late October.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I did not know at the time

18 that General Vasiljevic had been heard as a suspect. I didn't know that

19 his name was mentioned in the indictment. I didn't know at the time that

20 he then was no longer prosecuted. I didn't know some of the information

21 relating to him. So if he was a general in the JNA, then there's no

22 reason why a document provided by the JNA be kept confidential. However,

23 the sensitive issues here have just come to light.

24 Mr. Marcussen.

25 MR. MARCUSSEN: I think you have been perfectly clear on this, and

1 we really shouldn't be spending time on this. It's got to be clear to the

2 accused as well. The issue is revealing the source of material given to

3 the Court, in this instance through the Office of the Prosecutor. That is

4 the concern. Of course, General Vasiljevic is known, he has been

5 discussed in open court. This is not the issue. The issue is the source

6 of information provided, and that's what has to be in closed session -- in

7 private session, ought to have been, but the cat is out of the bag and

8 that's fine. But I hope the accused would acknowledge this distinction

9 and respect Your Honour's decision on this in the future.

10 Thank you.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I must read out

12 Article 70(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence which has to do with

13 exceptions to the rules of disclosure.

14 If some material has been disclosed confidentially, and if this

15 information has only been provided in order to provide new evidence, the

16 Prosecution cannot provide this initial material, and the source of the

17 material without the consent of the person having providing it or the body

18 having provided it. These sources can never be used as evidence before

19 having been disclosed to the Prosecution. So the Rule has provided for

20 the situation in which the Prosecution has in its possession very

21 confidential information provided by state or a private individual, and

22 this material cannot be disclosed -- and can only be disclosed if the

23 source agrees. This is what the Rules of Procedure says regarding this

24 particular matter.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, by your leave, that

1 provision of the Rules does not pertain to this case at all, because as

2 you can see, this is a document which is an exhibit, and it was provided

3 in these three binders as material tendered in the course of the testimony

4 of the expert witness of the OTP.

5 When the Prosecutor tried to tender this document in the course of

6 the examination-in-chief, I objected because the document has no

7 identifying markings, and the Prosecutor couldn't say anything about this.

8 I expressed my doubts, based on the style of writing. That's why I

9 thought it had been done by General Vasiljevic. And on the following day,

10 the Prosecutor confirmed that he really had done this.

11 I am just reminding you of what happened in the course of the past

12 few days, and you have all been eyewitnesses to this.

13 This is not a document giving certain information to the OTP which

14 they are using to search for other documents rather than using it as an

15 exhibit. They did try to tender this document as an exhibit

16 unsuccessfully. And also it's a document quoted by this expert in his

17 expert report, so this document is being used.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's proceed with the

19 cross-examination.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To avoid making a mistake, could you

21 just tell me whether I can now speak in public session about the contents

22 of the document or should I not mention them?

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may now talk about this

24 document in open session without any problem whatsoever.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, please correct these sources

1 can never be used as evidence before having been disclosed to the accused

2 and not the Prosecution. Thank you.

3 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...

4 Q. The following: When this document came into your hands, probably

5 from the OTP archives, did you ask yourself whether you should check who

6 the author of the document was, when it was compiled, to whom it was

7 addressed, and its other identifying features, before you used it in the

8 writing of your expert report?

9 A. Indeed, Your Honours, I did so, and I think it's helpful in this

10 context to make the distinction between the source and the provider. The

11 source of the document, i.e., the person or the organisation that drafted

12 the document, can be -- even though it is not clearly indicated or

13 explicitly indicated in the document, can be derived from the first

14 paragraph of the document, when you see under the title it is written:

15 "In working of the counter-intelligence protection of the Armed

16 Forces, VJ security organs ..."

17 And so on and so on. Now, obviously I read also through the

18 article itself.

19 Now, to explain the provider, each document that is -- that

20 becomes available to the Office of the Prosecutor is recorded in a

21 database and can be -- the information pertaining to when it was obtained,

22 from whom it was obtained, how it was obtained, as well as a short summary

23 of the document is stored and can be consulted. And obviously I consulted

24 that information for all the documents I included in the report, as it is

25 part of the methodology I applied when compiling this report, and so I

1 could see in the database that the document had been provided, which is

2 not the same as the source, it had been provided by a sensitive source,

3 which has been discussed extensively here.

4 I would also like to draw the Court's attention to the fact that I

5 only used this document to explain that according to that document,

6 volunteer groups had received weapons, small arms, from depots of the

7 former JNA, MUP, and the Serbian Ministry of Defence, and that these

8 weapons were distributed before these volunteers went to the battlefields

9 or the crisis areas in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, this is in

10 part 2 of the report.

11 In part 3 of the report, when discussing the arming and equipment

12 of SRS volunteers, we can actually see that the information included in

13 this security organ or Security Administration report is actually

14 corroborated by documents of the SRS war staff or statements of members of

15 the SRS war staff and also statements of Mr. Seselj himself, so I find it

16 hard to understand that there is such a problem being made about including

17 this document in my report.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to draw your attention

19 again to the fact that this was not an answer to my question, but you

20 continue to tolerate these expansive replies which do not contain an

21 answer to my question and yet waste my valuable time. But there's nothing

22 I can do about it.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understand your concern. Now

24 you're putting the question. You want to know whether, in the course of

25 his work, he pinpointed the origin of the document, and he said, "Yes,"

1 because they have a database that enables him to conduct this kind of

2 research. Notwithstanding the sensitive nature of this document, he felt

3 this document could be mentioned in his report because this document

4 related to the arming of the volunteers, and so on and so forth.

5 He has answered the question. Now, maybe you might not like his

6 answer, which I fully understand, but if you don't like his answer, you

7 can continue putting to him questions on the subject.

8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Theunens, what does this number 194 mean, the handwritten

10 figure at the top of the first page?

11 A. Your Honours, this is a number given -- that can be given by the

12 person who compiled the document or the person who provided the document.

13 I have not been able to establish that. And it's probably a registration

14 number, but I cannot provide additional information on that.

15 Q. What does this date mean, the 19th of October, 1993?

16 A. The date may refer to the date that the document was finalised or

17 was compiled.

18 Q. So the document -- and you can see that from the text, do you

19 agree, because from the text, it's evident that there was a big clash

20 ongoing between the Serbian Radical Party and the regime, which arose in

21 September, when we demanded that the government of Serbia be toppled?

22 This was in mid-September of 1993. Do you know of this? Please answer

23 briefly. If you don't know, we'll move on right away.

24 A. Your Honours, I am familiar, in general terms, with the political

25 conflict that arose in the, yeah, September, November 1993 time period

1 between Mr. Seselj and Mr. Milosevic.

2 Q. In what capacity did the General Aleksandar Vasiljevic, on the

3 19th of October, 1993, or in what capacity could he have written this

4 document? Tell me that, as a military expert.

5 A. Your Honours, the document does not state that it was -- that it

6 was written or compiled by Mr. Vasiljevic. That is what I have tried to

7 explain earlier, to make a distinction between the source, i.e., the

8 person or the organisation signing a document, or -- and when it's not

9 signed, well, you try to derive from the contents of the document, and I

10 drew the attention on the first paragraph. So the source does not have to

11 be the same person or organisation as the provider.

12 The document does not allow to identify who -- I mean, Mr. X, Y or

13 Z -- drafted the document. The document only allows to conclude that it

14 was compiled by security organs of the VJ. So when we talk about the VJ,

15 so it has to be -- it must have been compiled after May 1992, when the VJ

16 replaced the JNA. That's all we can say.

17 Mr. Theunens, as a military expert, could you explain, how come on

18 the first day I recognised that the author of this document was

19 General Vasiljevic by the style of writing? How could I have done that?

20 Do I have some sort of supernatural powers or am I simply familiar with

21 General Vasiljevic's style of writing? How could I have drawn that

22 conclusion?

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.

24 MR. MARCUSSEN: This is not a question that the witness can

25 answer. It calls for pure speculation.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the witness cannot answer

2 this kind of question, and the style of writing of the general is

3 something perhaps he's not familiar with.

4 So, Mr. Theunens, do you have an answer for this question or don't

5 you?

6 THE WITNESS: I would say it's a claim Mr. Seselj makes, but it

7 would be -- it would have to be verified if we really want to know.

8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Very well.

9 Q. To cut it short, in this document it says that the Serbian Radical

10 Party, in Serbia, formed paramilitary detachments. Certain municipalities

11 are mentioned, and so on and so forth. This was a time when the Serbian

12 Radical Party was engaged in a vehement conflict with the Milosevic

13 regime. In your report, you state that this was a period of large-scale

14 arrests of members of the Serbian Radical Party and especially its

15 volunteers; is that correct?

16 A. Your Honours, the document talks -- addresses events in 1991 and

17 1992, in particular in the context of the arming of paramilitary groups,

18 arming by Ministry of Interior and JNA. The listing of paramilitary

19 groups, from the document we cannot conclude whether this list of groups

20 applies to the situation in September or October of 1993 or whether it

21 actually is a list of organisation that existed actually in 1991 or 1992.

22 So when looking at the document, I do not see a link between the contents

23 of the document and the political conflict between Mr. Seselj and

24 Mr. Milosevic from October 1993.

25 I have indeed mentioned in my report that -- and I think I make

1 reference to a statement by Branislav Vakic, who was a senior SRS

2 volunteer, that after or during the political conflict between Mr. Seselj

3 and Mr. Milosevic, a large number of SRS volunteers were arrested. From

4 my work in the Milosevic trial, I -- and the documents I had access to at

5 that stage, I came to the conclusion that most of these volunteers were

6 released after having been charged, for example, for illegal possession of

7 arms, or only received minor punishments. There were at the time no

8 significant war crimes trials in the Republic of Serbia.

9 Q. Are you aware that after our initiative to topple the government,

10 the government of Nikola Sainovic lost its majority in the National

11 Assembly, that Slobodan Milosevic dissolved the National Assembly and

12 called new elections in December 1993? Are you aware of this? Yes or no,

13 please.

14 A. I'm aware of this in very general terms, Your Honours.

15 Q. All these arrests of members of the Serbian Radical Party, did

16 they take place in the course of the election campaign?

17 A. I'm aware of a number of arrests during the election campaign,

18 Your Honours, and as an outside observer, without having studied the

19 matter in detail, one could draw indeed the conclusion that these were

20 political arrests, that they were not arrested for the alleged crimes they

21 had or the alleged crimes they had committed, but for political reasons.

22 Q. You said that only some of them were convicted of possession of

23 weapons, which is not a very serious crime. Do you know that only two

24 were convicted of possession of weapons, after so many arrests that took

25 place? Are you aware of this?

1 A. Your Honours, I'm not aware of the precise number, but it would be

2 in line with what I said earlier, that it seemed that there were political

3 considerations that were actually the dominating factor at the time.

4 Q. Mr. Theunens, had the regime had information that the Serbian

5 Radical Party was really forming a paramilitary structure and paramilitary

6 detachments in Serbia and setting up commands, would that have been

7 sufficient reason for Milosevic to ban the Serbian Radical Party under the

8 then Serbian legislation which was valid at the time? To put it more

9 simply, if the things General Vasiljevic wrote in this document had been

10 true, that there were paramilitary detachments of the Serbian Radical

11 Party, would that have been sufficient reason for Milosevic to solve the

12 problem of the radicals for good and simply ban the party?

13 A. Your Honours, with your permission, I would like to make reference

14 to the letter by Colonel Eremija, which is 65 ter number 604. It also has

15 an exhibit number, but I don't have it. And I would like to make the link

16 with my testimony in the Milosevic trial, where Mr. Milosevic

17 cross-examined me on this document, in particular on the paragraph

18 where -- under heading 5, Colonel Eremija proposes that the organised

19 disarming of paramilitary formations is undertaken and that the

20 authorities of the Republic of Serbia must participate in the campaign.

21 Mr. Milosevic then stated to me, "Well, you know, these were all groups

22 from the opposition. The authorities were not involved." I then replied

23 by making reference to Article 118 of the 1990 Law on Defence of the

24 Republic of Serbia, which indeed states that only the state authorities

25 are allowed to organise, plan, establish, train, equip armed formations,

1 and that I would expect that in such a situation, the competent organs in

2 a country, more specifically the state security as well as the military

3 security, would keep a close eye on such groups.

4 Well, I can only repeat this answer here. Mr. Milosevic was not

5 only informed, I think, through the military chain of command, but also

6 there is, for example, the Human Rights Watch letter which he sent to him

7 and Adzic in January 1992 - I will provide you the 65 ter number - where

8 mention is made of the paramilitary groups originating from Serbia and

9 were participating in the fighting in Croatia. And the chief of cabinet

10 of Mr. Milosevic even provides a reply to Human Rights Watch to confirm

11 the reception of this report.

12 Now, I will finalise my reply. Whether the report is entirely

13 correct or not, that's not the issue, but if a head of state receives such

14 a report from an NGO, the least he would have done is to investigate the

15 matter.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Seselj.

17 What you've just said, I was reading your cross-examination in the

18 Milosevic trial this morning, and this is exactly what the transcript says

19 in that case.

20 Now, as far as what you have just said is concerned, Seselj's men,

21 the volunteers, the volunteers of the SRS, these were paramilitaries or

22 were these people who had been incorporated in the TO or in the JNA? What

23 do you have to answer to that?

24 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, from the strictly legal point of view,

25 based on the legislation that existed until the summer of 1991, these were

1 paramilitaries. However, as we discussed, between summer 1991 and

2 December 1991, a number of decrees and orders were adopted on the level of

3 the Republic of Serbia, the SSNO, as well as the SFRY Presidency, the 10th

4 of December Presidency order, in order to legalise not only SRS volunteers

5 but also other paramilitary or volunteer groups.

6 And as I explained, as far as Croatia is concerned, most of the

7 SRS volunteers were integrated in the TO, the local Serb TO that had been

8 established, and/or the JNA; i.e., they were operating under the command

9 of the JNA.

10 The situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina is slightly more complicated,

11 because there we seem to have -- or we have different arrangements

12 depending on the time period and the area we are looking at, and that is

13 what I have tried to explain in the second part of the report.

14 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Theunens, did the authorities in Serbia ever legalise the

16 Serbian Guard of Vuk Draskovic, the White Eagles or Yellow Wasps; did they

17 ever come within the composition of the JNA units?

18 A. Your Honours, I'm generally familiar with operations of -- that

19 are ascribed to the Serbian Guard in the general area of Gospic, but I

20 have not been able to look into detail to see what the command-and-control

21 arrangements were in the area of Gospic, so in Western Croatia, whether or

22 not the Serbian Guard was under command there of the JNA.

23 White Eagles are mentioned in the Eremija report we discussed

24 earlier. They seem to have been active in the wider area of Lovas or at

25 least Eastern Slavonia. I do not have enough sufficient documentation of

1 the Proletarian Guards Mechanised Division in order to establish what the

2 command-and-control arrangements were in relation to the participation of

3 White Eagles in that area.

4 The Yellow Wasps, in Zvornik, we're talking about the takeover of

5 Zvornik, April-May 1992. Based on the document I reviewed, obviously

6 Zvornik was located in the zone of responsibility of the 17th Corps of the

7 JNA. The 17 Corps was also alerted of the situation in the area, but the

8 documentation I had access to does not indicate that the 17 Corps

9 played -- or units of the 17 Corps played an active role in the Serb

10 takeover of Zvornik.

11 Q. Because the papers don't show it, then you considered that that

12 was really how things stood. Right, Mr. Theunens.

13 Now, Mr. Theunens, did you take part in preparing -- how can the

14 witness interrupt me, Judge?

15 Mr. Theunens, did you take part in the preparation of Goran

16 Stoparic for testimony and the proofing of Goran Stoparic?

17 A. Your Honours, I was not involved in any proofing, or interview, or

18 any other activity in relation to Goran Stoparic. I would just like to

19 address the claim made by Mr. Seselj, where he says because the papers

20 don't show it, then you consider that that's how things really stood. No,

21 the methodology is different.

22 I can only draw conclusions from documents. If there are no

23 documents available for a particular issue, I do not draw conclusions.

24 It's as simple as that. I cannot conclude what is not mentioned in a

25 document, and especially when I don't have a document.

1 Q. I'm asking you this because it seems symptomatic to me that in

2 this false document and in the false part of the testimony by

3 Goran Stoparic in this court, the same nonexistent thing is mentioned,

4 that the Serb Radical Party, in 1992 and 1993, formed paramilitary

5 detachments in Serbia in the various municipalities, so that's why I'm

6 asking you the question, because quite obviously you're searching for

7 grounds, legal grounds, for criminal proceedings to be taken with respect

8 to the Prosecution's thesis about the persecution of Croats from

9 Vojvodina. Isn't that right, Mr. Theunens?

10 A. Your Honours, I have not really understood the question, because

11 I'm not sure which -- which false document you're talking about.

12 MR. MARCUSSEN: And, Your Honours, before we get into where we

13 ended up yesterday, and also of allegations being made against various

14 people being thieves and liars and things like that, I think we should

15 caution the accused against, in this case, saying that one of the

16 witnesses has given false testimony.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, please reformulate

18 your question, because it's not quite -- it wasn't quite clear. I think I

19 understood your question, but please put your question again, without any

20 allegations about anybody, about false testimony or whatever, because this

21 is not sufficient to disqualify anybody.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I know full well, Mr. President,

23 that all my questions are nebulous. I'm not protesting against that

24 observation of yours.

25 Q. Mr. Theunens, you, as a military expert of the OTP, do you have

1 any knowledge whatsoever to the effect that during 1992 and 1993, there

2 was any kind of attack against the Croatia civilian population in

3 Vojvodina, in any locality?

4 A. Your Honours, the activities in Vojvodina are outside my scope, so

5 I can't answer that question.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, a few minutes ago

7 Mr. Seselj wanted to ask a question, and you were not in a position to

8 answer. Now he's moving forward, but the question he meant to ask seems

9 essential to me, so I'm going to put it to you.

10 To your knowledge, and based on the documents you reviewed, are

11 you in a position to say that there were paramilitary units in 1992 and

12 1993 in Croatia, paramilitary units of the Serbian Radical Party? I want

13 to be specific.

14 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, maybe it was a mistake in the

15 transcript, but the question by the accused was whether there were any

16 such activities in Vojvodina, and the expert -- Vojvodina is in Serbia.

17 So -- no, it's just that the transcript says "Croatia"" in your question.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My question related to Croatia

19 first before we move on to anything else.

20 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, in the section Croatia, excuse me,

21 Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem, I think I included, again, it's an

22 unsigned and undated document apparently compiled by the security organ on

23 the role of Jovo Ostojic in Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem and more

24 specifically his activities against the local Serb population.

25 Jovo Ostojic, who is known as being in charge of an SRS volunteer group in

1 Sarajevo in 1992, according to SRS documentation or articles in "Velika

2 Serbia," he was also involved in training SRS volunteers in a training

3 camp in Pribisevica in Serbia.

4 The Ostojic document I'm referring to is 65 ter number 4144,

5 discussed on page 122 and 123 of my report.

6 For Bosnia-Herzegovina, allow me to just give you one example.

7 This is on page 203, English page 203 of part 2 of the report, where I

8 address the participation of SRS/SCP volunteers in the Serb takeover of

9 Bosanski Samac in April 1992. And I quote there from a statement by

10 Zoran Obradovic, chairman of the town board of the Serbian Radical Party

11 in Kragujevac, so a city in southern in Serbia, at the occasion of the

12 Fatherland 3rd Congress of the Serbian Radical Party. It's a speech he

13 makes in 1994, and I'll just read out the quotation.

14 "Obradovic states, having completed the task," which refers to

15 previous activity of SRS volunteers, "the war staff of the Serbian Radical

16 Party ordered it," and he's talking about the Chetnik Sumarija Detachment,

17 "to move, with the assistance of the air force, to the area around

18 Bosanski Samac in order to organise a Serbian uprising against the joint

19 Ustasha," and then it uses the term "balija," which is translated as a

20 derogatory term for BH Muslims, "authorities." And so on and so on.

21 This is just one example of an SRS volunteer detachment which has

22 been formed in Serbia. It is still in existence in April 1992, and then

23 it acts in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bosanski Samac. It states with the

24 assistance of the air force. I drew a conclusion from that this was with

25 the assistance of the JNA, because that's the only air force I can

1 imagine. Serbia did not have an air force at that stage, and I don't

2 expect that the air force of the --

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I take good note of what

4 you just said. But you are talking about assistance of the air force, so

5 there must have been at least orders of resubordination of this unit,

6 whether it was paramilitary or not, because the JNA or the VRS were not

7 going to launch the air force into an operation without any basis.

8 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour. There needs to have

9 been a plan and a preparation of the operation, because it's not just a

10 group who goes to an airport and says, "We need a helicopter or an

11 aeroplane."

12 I would just like to make a small correction. The VRS was only

13 established in May 1992, so it has to be JNA. But otherwise, indeed, we

14 see -- and that's what I have tried to explain when addressing the various

15 geographic areas included in both the Croatia section as well as the

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina section of part 2 of the report, that the SRS/SCP

17 volunteers do not act --

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Stop here, please. What about

19 Vojvodina?

20 THE WITNESS: Your Honours -- I'm just waiting for the transcript.

21 Your Honours, I have not looked into Vojvodina because that was not part

22 of my tasking. I only addressed the role in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Well, I would like to dwell on that for a moment, Mr. Theunens.

25 How come the indictment incorporates the alleged crimes in Vojvodina,

1 punishable under international war law, which implies and understands that

2 there must have been an attack somewhere against the Croatian civilian

3 population, and an attack must be systematic or widespread, as it says,

4 but that you must have an attack to begin with, and you, as a military

5 expert of the OTP, are best placed, I assume, to assess whether there was

6 an attack at all in the first place. You say you didn't deal with that,

7 so who's going to answer my question, then, if not you, whether there was

8 an attack or not?

9 MR. MARCUSSEN: This is not --

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Marcussen.

11 MR. MARCUSSEN: This is not a question that can be answered by the

12 witness. There would be led evidence about these matters later on in the

13 case.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Your question has legal --

15 major legal implications. The expert told us that he was not a legal

16 expert, so there will be further evidence, and your question will perhaps

17 be answered, Mr. Seselj.

18 Go on, please.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is the only military expert of

20 the Prosecution that they have told us about. They have nobody else who

21 could come here and interpret, from the professional expert standpoint,

22 whether there was an attack in Vojvodina at all against the Croatian

23 civilian population. They're going to bring in alleged victims, people

24 who perhaps suffered during various incidents or whatever, who had an

25 unpleasant time, but they do not intend to call on any other military

1 expert who can confirm, on behalf of the Prosecution, that there was

2 indeed an attack, because if there was no attack, then that part of the

3 indictment does not hold water. You can't add 10, 12, 15 isolated

4 incidents and say that was an attack.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm not going to deal into the

6 legal aspect of the issue, but to your knowledge, even though apparently

7 you haven't gone into the details of the issues related to Vojvodina, can

8 you tell us whether there has been a large attack against the Croatian

9 population of Vojvodina, according to what you know?

10 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I have been called here to deal with

11 military issues, and even if I haven't studied the matter in detail, to my

12 recollection there hasn't been a military attack, i.e., by the VJ, in

13 Vojvodina.

14 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

15 Q. The Army of Yugoslavia, I see, you said it wasn't -- right. I was

16 a little taken aback when I heard what was being said to me first.

17 Thank you, Mr. Theunens. You have -- you are the most valuable

18 witness I have had here thus far, and I'm not going to ask you any more

19 difficult questions. I'm going to ask you easy ones now.

20 You have confirmed a key matter in my Defence. The Prosecution

21 might attack you, but if the OTP sack you, I will find a job for you on my

22 Defence team.

23 Now, Mr. Theunens, I gained the impression that during the

24 cross-examination, you went back and corrected a part of your expert

25 report and then confirmed that, in a way, the volunteers of the Serbian

1 Radical Party were involved in the war areas of Slavonia, Baranja and

2 Western Srem until September 1991, and that they were engaged in a

3 different way after September 1991. Did I understand that correctly?

4 A. Your Honours, what I tried to say, I think this was in response to

5 a question by the Prosecutor where I was asked to summarise my

6 conclusions, it is that prior to September or indeed earlier, middle or

7 end of September, 1991, the documents I have consulted in relation to

8 Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem indicate that the SRS/SCP volunteers are

9 operating without being part of a wider force which is commanded and

10 controlled by the JNA. I mean by that that they operate in cooperation

11 with local village defences, local Serb TO. There is no systematic

12 involvement of the JNA in the areas where SRS/SCP volunteers are active.

13 In the course of the month of September, and I use that date

14 because it's -- it's -- it's linked to the appointment of

15 General Zivota Panic as the commander of the 1st Military District, he's

16 then appointed as the person in charge of the operations, the JNA

17 operations in Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem, and he establishes two

18 operational groups, OG North and OG South. And from the documentation I

19 have consulted, we can see that SRS/SCP volunteers operate in OG South.

20 Those that are part of the Petrova Gora and Leva Supoderica, local Serb TO

21 detachments in Vukovar, are -- operate under the command and control of

22 the Guards Motorised Brigade until at least the 21st of November at 6.00

23 in the morning. And that's actually shown in the document or the report.

24 Q. Just please try and give me brief answers. I confirm the

25 truthfulness of your words, that up until September 1991, the volunteers

1 of the Serbian Radical Party had no links with the JNA.

2 Now, is it obvious to you, then, from the report by

3 Srecko Radovanovic who writes in one section that when the JNA entered a

4 certain village, the volunteers withdrew straightaway, they avoided any

5 meeting with the JNA. Did you note that in his report?

6 A. Indeed, Your Honours, but I would just like to come back to when

7 Mr. Seselj says, "I confirm the truthfulness of your words," stating that

8 the SRS volunteers had no links with the JNA, I mean by that that they

9 were not operating under the command and control of the JNA in the area.

10 Whether there were other links, I have not answered that question. And

11 what Srecko Radovanovic states, yes, and it actually confirms also -- it

12 corresponds with what Ljubisa Petkovic stated in another public statement,

13 probably a "Velika Serbia" article, when he said that for what Slavonia,

14 Baranja, Western Srem is concerned, the SRS volunteers did not want to

15 cooperate with the JNA. This was probably a statement from prior to

16 September 1991.

17 Q. Mr. Theunens, that's a very important thing here. You saw that

18 the Serbian radical volunteers existed in many countries --

19 THE INTERPRETER: In many villages, interpreter's correction.

20 Q. ... 10 or 15 villages, in fact. And then Ljubisa Petkovic, at the

21 beginning of September, asks that all the volunteers of the Serbian

22 Radical Party be returned to Serbia? Do you remember that piece of paper?

23 And Zoran Rankic goes into the field to convey that to them? Do you

24 remember those papers, to avoid looking for the documents in these files?

25 It takes up a long time, but they've been presented here, anyway, earlier

1 on.

2 A. I don't remember the document. Then if we are talking about

3 Eastern Slavonia, then I think it's incorrect, but it would be helpful to

4 see the document because I'm trying to find it, whether it's in my report

5 or not, because I don't remember the document.

6 Q. Well, Srecko Radovanovic mentions that at the end of his report,

7 too, that he was ordered to withdraw volunteers who were under his

8 command, to withdraw them to Serbia. And he describes in his report which

9 fighting he took part in, what the results of that combat were, and

10 finally he says that he was given the order to withdraw to Serbia. You

11 will find that in Zoran Rankic's writings, too, in a report where he

12 complains that a group of volunteers did not wish to withdraw to Serbia,

13 and he mentions Trpinja and Branislav Gavrilovic-Brne, that he refused to

14 return to Serbia. All those documents were shown here. If you can't find

15 them, I don't have time to waste looking for them, if you can't remember

16 and recall that.

17 Do you agree with me? Tell me if you agree that all the

18 volunteers were withdrawn from Slavonia to Serbia, and that from September

19 onwards, they were sent within the composition of the JNA to units which

20 were exclusively under the command of the JNA, and that's my thesis.

21 A. Your Honours, I cannot entirely agree, because I think we're

22 mixing different documents in different areas. So it would be helpful

23 just to refresh my memory to see the document.

24 Q. Well, have you got Srecko Radovanovic's document?

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're not going to see the

1 documents, but we're going to try and deal with the most important issue.

2 What the accused says is that starting in September 1991, the SRS

3 asks and invites the volunteers to go back to Serbia, and that when they

4 arrive in Serbia, they will be put under the command of the JNA. Do you

5 agree with this idea or not?

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To help the witness remember, I'm

7 sure you'll recall that it was ordered that the volunteers should return

8 in order to regroup.

9 Q. Do you remember that?

10 A. To answer the question of the Presiding Judge, yes, I do remember

11 that Srecko Radovanovic issued such an order to the volunteers under his

12 command, to those volunteers, and indeed as I said earlier, that from

13 September onwards the volunteers operating, at least those in Eastern

14 Slavonia, so in the wider area of Vukovar, are under the command of the

15 JNA.

16 I just want to add one small comment. That is for Western

17 Slavonia. That is, when there is an exchange of letters and reports

18 between the Command of the 5th JNA Corps, General Talic, and the military

19 prosecutor in the area, and this document is included in my report, to

20 discuss crimes that were committed or allegedly committed in the area of

21 Vocin around the 10th of September, Talic notifies --

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What has this to do with my

23 question? Mr. President, please, well, intervene at least once. We're

24 talking about Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem.

25 THE WITNESS: If we're only talking about Slavonia, Baranja and

1 Western Srem, it's fine.

2 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Theunens, we're talking about up to September, up to the month

4 of September, no a single volunteer of the Serbian Radical Party was in

5 Western Slavonia, isn't that right? So don't mix things up before

6 September and after September, if you're able to do that. Are you able to

7 do that?

8 So up until September, the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party

9 were defending certain villages, called in by the local Serb population to

10 do so. Now, do you know that those volunteers crossed over into Slavonia,

11 crossed the Danube or Srem, and they had to hide from the authorities in

12 Serbia to do that?

13 A. Your Honours, first of all I would like to comment on the fact --

14 on the claim made by Mr. Seselj that these volunteers had been called by

15 the local Serb population to come to the area. I would like to refer you

16 to English page 104 in part 2 of the report, where the activities of the

17 Chetnik Volunteer Detachment that participated in the -- okay, the

18 conflict in Borovo Sela on the 2nd of May is being discussed, and

19 according to 65 ter number 320, that's Chetnik Volunteer Detachment had

20 been established following a decision by the Central Homeland

21 Administration of the Serbian Chetnik Movement and was then dispatched to

22 Western Srem on the 2nd of April, 1991.

23 Now, the circumstances of how these volunteers went from Serbia to

24 Croatia. Indeed, articles of "Velika Serbia" suggested the volunteers did

25 not use one of the three bridges over the Danube, but that they crossed

1 the Danube by night using boats.

2 Q. Well, you could have given a much shorter answer to that question,

3 because that's the essence of it. If you said they went -- crossed the

4 river in boats by night, that would have sufficed. Why go on with all the

5 other things you said. That's what I'm saying, anyway.

6 Now do you know how these volunteers were armed, what weapons they

7 had and where they obtained them from?

8 A. I understand, Your Honours, that these volunteers had small arms.

9 In some cases, they received the weapons in the -- in the villages they

10 went to, so these weapons had been provided there one way or the other.

11 I've also seen, and that's actually included in the section on training

12 and equipment of the SRS volunteers, that, as I said earlier, that SRS

13 volunteers received weapons from JNA, with the assist -- and from the

14 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia and sometimes with the

15 assistance of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I don't think the witness

17 does not understand my questions. I think he is intentionally engaged in

18 subversive activity of my defence and the cross-examination. I am asking

19 him up until September 1991, exclusively up until that month, the month of

20 September 1991. Now, he's already said they received weapons in the

21 villages they went to. There's not single shred of evidence that they got

22 it from the JNA and carried it in from Serbia. But my question was what

23 type of weapons. He said infantry weapons.

24 Q. Now, I would like to know specifications. If we're talking about

25 rifles, automatic rifles, what kind of weapons? And as a military expert,

1 you must know the kind of weapons and be able to answer the question.

2 A. Mr. Seselj, himself, when he spoke to the Death of Yugoslavia

3 documentary, and this is mentioned on page 42, part 2 of the report, spoke

4 about Thompson guns, which are quite old, small machine-guns, M-48 guns or

5 rifles, and then there's something he called a Tandzara, but I'm not

6 familiar with that. So in summary, these are most of the time old, small

7 arms.

8 Q. Mr. Theunens, this Thompson gun, is it really an automatic rifle?

9 What do you think, as an officer?

10 A. Your Honour --

11 Q. It's a difficult question, isn't it? Shall I withdraw it if it's

12 that difficult?

13 A. No, I will try to answer the question to my best abilities. I

14 never operated a Thompson, but I think it has a round charger and I'm not

15 sure whether it's entirely automatic so that it can fire all rounds in one

16 attempt or whether it can only fire shot by shot and small bursts. But

17 I'm familiar with the type of weapon. I think it was even used in the

18 Second World War by the British forces, if my recollection is correct.

19 Q. Are we dealing with a rifle? Is it a rifle? Just answer that,

20 please.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Mr. Theunens, you, as a military expert and an officer of the

23 courageous Belgian Army, do you know what the difference is between an

24 automatic and an automatic rifle?

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you please answer the

1 question, because I must say I was quite taken aback by what you'd said

2 before. I thought that a Thompson gun was more a machine-gun, a small

3 machine-gun, and you're telling us it's a rifle. What's the difference

4 between the two?

5 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Between an automatic and an automatic rifle, the difference

7 between the two?

8 A. I think the issue has to do with the translation. When I meant

9 "rifle," I actually meant that it's, in my view, an automatic rifle. Now,

10 because "gun" can also be used for "cannon," so it's -- yeah, I don't have

11 a picture here, but it looks -- in French, you could say "mitraillette,"

12 but of small calibre.

13 Now, the question Mr. Seselj talks about, an automatic and an

14 automatic rifle, I'm not sure what is meant by the first term. I want to

15 make a distinction between, for example, what is known as a Thompson and

16 then a heavy machine-gun, for example, what we have, the MAG, which is

17 what -- or what you often see in movies, like the point 50, which is a

18 machine-gun. Now, the Thompson is closer to a Kalashnikov, for example,

19 when you look in very general terms at the weapons system, than to a point

20 50 or the MAG machine-gun, if that helps to clarify the situation.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's five past 10.00.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a short question, if I may,

23 Your Honour, Judge, to round off this topic.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please finish on this point.

25 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Do you know what a German Schmeisser is, dating back to the Second

2 World War?

3 A. Yes, Your Honours. It's a small, well, you call it and in French

4 "mitraillette."

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that they looked up "automat"

6 and it's a submachine-gun. Thank you.

7 MR. SESELJ: [No interpretation]

8 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I think the question has not been

9 translated.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please repeat your question,

11 Mr. Seselj.

12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

13 Q. That large Thompson, it was an unwieldy weapon. You said that it

14 could have the charger with the 50 bullets. Is it closer to a German

15 Schmeisser or a Russian Kalashnikov? What type would it be closer to?

16 A. I haven't said that the charger could be -- could contain 50

17 rounds, but it's possible. I'm not a technical expert. Whether it's

18 close to the Schmeisser or Kalashnikov, I would say it's closer to the

19 Kalashnikov, but that's maybe a matter of interpretation. I come from

20 tanks, we didn't have these kind of things. I mean I'm not an infantry

21 soldier. We had bigger guns.

22 Q. Mr. Theunens, it's not a question of interpretation, it's a

23 question of professional knowledge. Since I'm a much better military

24 expert than you, it is closer to a Schmeisser, because the Schmeisser and

25 the Thompson use a pistol ammunition, whereas the Kalashnikov uses rifle

1 ammunition, and that's why the Kalashnikov is an automatic rifle, whereas

2 the Thompson and Schmeisser and Spagin and the M-56, they are

3 submachine-guns, automatic. They're a little better than an automatic

4 pistol, for example, as a weapon. So they're bigger than an automatic

5 pistol and their charger is bigger, magazine clip, charger. So there's a

6 difference between a submachine-gun and an automatic rifle, but if you

7 don't know that, what can we do?

8 But we'll continue after the break.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have to stop. It's five past

10 10. I believe that in total you have 30 minutes left, Mr. Seselj. I'll

11 make sure your time does not go over.

12 Twenty-minute break.

13 --- Recess taken at 10.07 a.m.

14 --- On resuming at 10.26 a.m.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have resumed the hearing.

16 Mr. Marcussen.

17 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I promised to report back on the

18 issue of Vasiljevic's various interviews and so on.

19 Now, first I'd like to correct one thing. I think I sort of

20 conceded that maybe the accused had not received private session or closed

21 session parts of Vasiljevic's testimony in the Milosevic case. That's

22 actually incorrect. By receipt, number 55 from the 6th of June, 2007, the

23 accused was provided private session parts of Vasiljevic's testimony in

24 the Milosevic case. I can distribute the receipts here, but I don't know

25 if there's any need to, but I can do it if you'd like.

1 The second issue is with respect to the suspect interview. We

2 would be in a position to disclose -- or we will disclose a transcript

3 that has been made of the recording of the suspect interview. We will

4 give that to the accused as soon as we can get it printed and sent to him.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to see

6 that certificate. Probably what Mr. Marcussen says is true, but I want to

7 see it. I want to see the receipt right now, if possible.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. It will be shown to you.

9 MR. MARCUSSEN: This is a receipt of the printed version, so it

10 doesn't have the signature, but I'm getting the signature brought. It's

11 coming in a little bit. Actually, I do have it here in a signed version.

12 And I will refer the accused to items 40 and 41 on the second page of the

13 table that is attached to the receipt.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it doesn't say here

15 at all that I received those transcripts. It only says that the OTP

16 conducted a search of all transcripts of closed and private sessions in

17 order to find instances of the witness mentioning my name, and to hand

18 over to me a list of those instances. It says: "We searched the

19 transcripts and prepared the enclosed list with the name or pseudonym of

20 the witness and the page number where your name is mentioned. The list

21 covers the transcripts up to the 31st of August, 2006, and it was sent to

22 Mr. Cooper on the 14th of September, 2006."

23 "We are updating the search. We would be grateful if you were to

24 confirm the receipt by signing the [indiscernible] list and returning it

25 to our office."

1 I received only this list, not the transcripts. That's evident

2 from the receipt.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen, apparently it's a

4 list.

5 MR. MARCUSSEN: It was my understanding that the transcripts had

6 followed the receipt, but if the accused says he didn't receive them, then

7 that might -- I stand corrected on that.

8 What this list would do, though, would be to enable the accused to

9 make the request to the Trial Chamber, and I did not intentionally mean to

10 mislead the accused or the Court.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Let's complete the

12 cross-examination. You have 25 minutes left, exactly.

13 But before I give the floor to Mr. Seselj, I have a question. We

14 were talking about Thompson guns, machine-guns, but I was still thinking

15 of paramilitary units. To your knowledge, were paramilitary units that

16 were in the field -- did they wear specific uniforms, did they have

17 specific equipment, or was it very difficult to distinguish a paramilitary

18 unit from a TO unit or a JNA unit? Were there, according to you,

19 differences between the two? And to sum up my question, did the SRS

20 volunteers bear specific signs that showed or suggested that they were

21 members of the SRS?

22 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, the various volunteers/paramilitary

23 groups all had -- or many of them had their own badges and insignia, but

24 they were not systematically worn on the battlefield. It seems that these

25 badges and insignia were most often available in shops in Belgrade, and

1 then people would buy them for whatever purpose.

2 Now, to answer to your question, the easiest way to identify

3 volunteers on the battlefield would be to look at their general aspect, in

4 the sense that, for example, Seselj volunteers often wore long beards.

5 Why? Because they wanted to look like some of the Chetniks who

6 participated in earlier conflicts. Some of them had high hats, fur hats

7 with the so-called cockade, so a metal insignia on it, but not all of

8 them. Some of the volunteers were wearing a mixture of TO uniforms, so

9 the so-called SMB, olive-drab, one-colour uniform, but mixed up with bits

10 of stuff they would find somewhere else.

11 The only paramilitary group that looked kind of dressed in a

12 uniform way were the Arkan -- Arkan Serbian Volunteer Guard, where at

13 least during parades they would be dressed in black overalls, and while

14 participating in the conflict they would wear camouflage uniforms.

15 There were also volunteers who had camouflage uniforms, but some

16 of them would then be camouflage uniforms as those adopted by the JNA, for

17 example, the Guards Motorised Brigade at one time in Vukovar received

18 camouflage uniforms, or at least some members, but sometimes it was bits

19 of uniforms they had found somewhere else.

20 There's 65 ter number 2164 is a "Velika Serbia" article, and on

21 the cover of the magazine where the article is taken from, one can see a

22 picture of Mr. Seselj posing in uniform among other individuals in

23 uniform, and from the contents of "Velika Serbia," one could draw the

24 conclusion or one can -- one draws the conclusion that these people who

25 are surrounding Mr. Seselj in uniform are all SRS volunteers. And this

1 picture would show you actually the wide array of different natures of

2 uniform and insignia that are worn even within one particular volunteer or

3 paramilitary group.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.

5 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Mr. Theunens, can you say what the percentage of volunteers of the

7 Serbian Radical Party was that wore beards?

8 A. Your Honours, I cannot say that, but some of the Vojvodas, for

9 example, Slavko Aleksic was known for his beard, and I think in the

10 documents Mr. Seselj handed over, there is a military booklet for Vaske,

11 Vasilije Vidovic, and the picture, quite surprisingly, in the military

12 booklet, you can basically see the face of Mr. Vidovic, but you see most

13 of all the long beard.

14 Now, I don't claim that all SRS volunteers wore beards, but at

15 least some of them did. In particular -- I think this is particularly

16 relevant because it was not common for members of the military to wear

17 such long beards.

18 Q. Mr. Theunens, the OTP has all the photographs of all the Chetnik

19 Vojvodas I proclaimed. Do more of them have a beard or do most of them do

20 not have a beard? This is ridiculous that he should identify volunteers

21 of the SRS by their beards. That's the first time in my life I've heard

22 of such a thing, but let him say so.

23 Do more of them have beards or are more of them clean-shaven?

24 A. Your Honours, maybe something went wrong or I mis-expressed

25 myself, but I didn't claim that every volunteer with a beard was an SRS

1 volunteer. What I tried to say is that a number of significant or

2 prominent SRS volunteers had long beards, which was unusual for people who

3 are participating in armed conflicts as members of the armed forces. And

4 two of them are Aleksic and Vaske, on the pictures I have seen, to be

5 completely complete.

6 Q. I want to say to you, Mr. Theunens, that you are unable to

7 recognise a volunteer of the SRS by his external appearance and tell him

8 apart from other volunteers and soldiers. Am I right?

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In that respect, did you review

10 JNA regulations about the fact of having a beard? Was it authorised or

11 was it prohibited, to have a beard?

12 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I am not familiar with the specific

13 prescriptions in the JNA dealing with beards. Now, I know that from a

14 military point of view, beards are considered a security risk because they

15 make it more difficult to wear a gas mask.

16 Now, I know from the members of the Guards Motorised Brigade in

17 Vukovar that --

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the French Foreign Legions,

19 you have bearded servicemen.

20 THE WITNESS: Indeed, Your Honours, the engineers of the French

21 Foreign Legion, it's part of their tradition, they have long beards, but

22 I'm not sure whether they're allowed to carry these beards when they're

23 sent to operations, in particular operations where there is a threat of

24 the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

25 Now, to come back to the Guards Motorised Brigade, I was told by

1 members of the Guards Motorised Brigade that at one moment in Vukovar,

2 they decided not to shave anymore, but they never had beards like the two

3 individuals I mentioned earlier, Aleksic and Vaske.

4 Q. Mr. Theunens, the OTP has spent a vast amount of money to have

5 translated all the JNA regulations and all the provisions, and you did not

6 have time to read that and find the regulation prohibiting beards in the

7 JNA to active duty officers and conscripts doing their military service,

8 but reservists were allowed to have beards. You were unable to find this

9 anywhere because you didn't read all the documents. A reservist, when

10 called up into the reserves, could wear a beard. Of course, he had to be

11 tidy. His beard was not permitted to be full of fleas. He would have to

12 wash it regularly, but he could wear it.

13 You didn't read this, and now, in your view, a beard is the main

14 characteristic of volunteers of the SRS. But you didn't answer my

15 question. Am I right when I say that judging by external appearances, you

16 couldn't distinguish a volunteer of the SRS from other volunteers,

17 territorials, JNA soldiers, and so on and so forth, judging by external

18 appearance?

19 A. Your Honours, I wish to emphasise that I never claimed that all

20 volunteers wearing beards were SRS volunteers or that long beards were the

21 main characteristics of volunteers of the SRS.

22 Now, answering the second part of Mr. Seselj's question, by the --

23 as I said in the earlier question, the question of the Presiding Judge,

24 from the overall looks, one could make a distinction between the JNA, TO

25 and volunteers. Within the volunteers, it was more difficult to make a

1 distinction because of the mixture of uniforms, but a number of SRS

2 volunteers would wear particular insignia, like, for example, the

3 "kokarda," or they would have a fur hat, or they would have a long beard,

4 or any other characteristic which would assist in determining that these

5 volunteers belonged to or -- belonged to an SRS volunteer detachment. But

6 it's not the only criteria.

7 Q. On the basis of what? Just give me a single indication on the

8 basis of which you could be sure that you were dealing with a volunteer of

9 the SRS. Just say one thing. Did other volunteers wear cockades? Did

10 regular soldiers take off their five-pointed stars and put cockades? In

11 some places, the officers objected and other places they didn't. Why

12 would a fur hat be a characteristic of the SRS when it belongs to the

13 tradition of the entire Serbian people, or the Sajkaca cap? Just give me

14 a single feature on the basis of which you could be sure, judging by

15 external appearances, that a man was a volunteer of the SRS. It can't be

16 a beard, it can't be a cockade. The cockades were being sold in the

17 street; anyone could buy them. It can't be a uniform. So what can it be?

18 A. Your Honours, I've tried to explain not only the complexity of the

19 whole issue but also the fact that one would have to look at various

20 characteristics. It is correct that seeing one individual in an isolated

21 environment with a kokarda does not allow to conclude, well, this has to

22 be an SRS volunteer. They have to have more factors. In whose company is

23 this person? Where is this person active? What is this person doing?

24 What is this person claiming, himself? Are there other volunteers? And

25 this then, looking at these various aspects, would allow to conclude, yes,

1 indeed we are dealing with a member of an SRS volunteer detachment. But

2 seeing an isolated individual, I would agree with Mr. Seselj, it would be

3 difficult or impossible to determine which volunteer group this individual

4 determined -- belonged to.

5 Q. But you couldn't judge that by the company he kept, either. For

6 example, in Leva Supoderica, there were locals, there were volunteers of

7 the SRS, and there were also other volunteers, and you see them all

8 together. How could you tell which of them was a volunteer of the SRS,

9 which of them was some other kind of volunteer, and which of them was a

10 territorial? Could they be told apart?

11 A. Your Honours, when we're talking about Leva Supoderica,

12 Leva Supoderica has been identified in SRS documentation, both documents

13 from the war staff as well as "Velika Serbia" articles, as a Chetnik

14 volunteer detachment. Now, this means that there are particular links

15 between Leva Supoderica and the SRS. There is also a document indicating

16 that the -- that the commander, Milan Lancuzanin was appointed through the

17 intervention of the SRS war staff, which means, in my view, that Leva

18 Supoderica, as I said, is an SRS volunteer detachment, including its

19 members. Now, whether they consider themselves also TO, that is then of

20 less relevance in the context of my report.

21 Q. How can you claim that the Serbian Radical Party appointed

22 Lancuzanin commander of Leva Supoderica when that detachment of the

23 Territorial Defence existed in Vukovar before the arrival of the Guards

24 Brigade and our volunteers, and when Lancuzanin had nothing to do with the

25 Serbian Radical Party? In late October or early November 1991, that's

1 when he joined the Serbian Radical Party.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Mr. Seselj is providing

3 here an additional piece of information. This detachment, Leva Supoderica

4 Detachment, according to what Mr. Seselj told us, it existed before the

5 arrival of the SRS volunteers. Is that correct or is that not correct?

6 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I'm checking my report. I think it

7 would be helpful when we -- there is an article by Branislav Vakic which

8 is actually P55, when Branislav Vakic talks about his experiences in

9 Vukovar as well as other combat areas, and this is on page -- English page

10 117 of part 2 of my report, where Vakic states, among other things:

11 "One group of Chetniks had already been deployed on the approaches

12 to town under the command of Milan Lancuzanin, Kameni," and so on. And he

13 refers there to the 1st of November 1991.

14 So I stand corrected for the appointment of Lancuzanin, but at

15 least Lancuzanin is confirmed by the Radical Party as the person in

16 command of the Leva Supoderica Chetnik Volunteer Detachment. And the

17 reference to the Chetnik Volunteer Detachment is made in, for example, in

18 the order proclaiming Lancuzanin to Chetnik Vojvoda, which is the order

19 number 124, 65 ter number 1841.

20 Q. But the fact that these people refer to themselves as Chetniks

21 even before the arrival of the Guards Brigade doesn't link them to the

22 Serbian Radical Party, does it, because the Serbian Radical Party cannot

23 have a monopoly on all Chetniks, can it? We discussed this yesterday.

24 A. That is correct, but if we have people who refer to themselves as

25 Chetniks who are member of a unit which is identified in several documents

1 by the Serbian Radical Party as a Chetnik volunteer detachment, we can

2 conclude from that that the use of the term "Chetnik" by these people to

3 identify themselves is accepted and agreed with by the Serbian Radical

4 Party.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Theunens, you're a very

6 clever man, and you always answer in line with the case you develop in

7 your report, but the question went much deeper than your answer. The

8 question of the accused was whether before the arrival of the SRS

9 volunteers, whether there was not a unit that had called itself "Chetnik,"

10 without there being any link whatsoever with the SRS. Then you should

11 have answered "yes" or "no," but that's not the way you answered. You

12 added something else in order to bring back the question within the remit

13 of your own case. So I'm going to ask you the question, and then you'll

14 answer by "yes" or "no." And the question is the following:

15 Before SRS volunteers arrived in the Vukovar region, was there

16 already a detachment of local people, a detachment that had

17 self-proclaimed itself or called itself "Chetnik"?

18 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I cannot answer the question, because

19 I have not been able to establish the circumstances how Leva Supoderica

20 was founded and so on and so on.

21 From the documents, including my report, the answer would be --

22 I'm just trying to read the question again. The answer would be "yes,"

23 but, again, I don't think it's a conclusive answer.

24 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Fine.

25 Q. Well, now listen to me carefully, and please don't respond to

1 something that is not contained in my question. How did volunteers of the

2 Serbian Radical Party, in the Serbian villages of Slavonia, from April to

3 September 1991, obtain weapons? Where did they get weapons from? Answer

4 me that.

5 A. Your Honours, that question was already asked before the break,

6 and I replied that they received the weapons from -- in the area, so from

7 the local village defence. However, while reviewing my report during the

8 break, I also found a statement by Mr. Soskocanin, who participated in the

9 incident in Borovo Selo, who made a reference to the JNA. It's a very

10 general reference, but, anyway, that's included in my report.

11 Q. Mr. Theunens, they could not have obtained the weapons from the

12 local Territorial Defence because long before this, the JNA took all the

13 weapons from the Territorial Defence in all the federal units of the

14 former Yugoslavia, and you are aware of this, aren't you?

15 A. Your Honours, I am aware of the order of May 1990 by General Adzic

16 to relocate the weapons of the TO's, of the Republic's, and the autonomous

17 provinces, to JNA warehouses, but I also understood that some of these

18 weapons in the course -- I mean, already before [Realtime transcript read

19 in error "throughout"] the conflict were redistributed to Serbs in various

20 parts of Croatia. I have not dealt with that aspect in detail in my

21 report.

22 Just for the transcript, I said "before the conflict," so already

23 starting somewhere in 1990, 1991. There is information that the JNA

24 assisted in -- together with the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic

25 of Serbia and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia, in

1 redistribute weapons to Serbs in various parts of Croatia.

2 Q. If the JNA supplied those weapons, and we saw what those weapons

3 were like, they were obsolete, Thompsons, Russian Spagin, M-48 rifles,

4 M-56 submachine-guns, do you know of a single JNA unit which used such

5 weapons in the time period we are talking about, a single one?

6 A. As Mr. Seselj said, Your Honours, these were obsolete weapons, and

7 I understand they were still stored in JNA depots, but I have no

8 information that they were still in use by JNA units.

9 Q. To cut this short, I'll tell you what I know about this, and you

10 can confirm whether it's correct or not. These are weapons written off by

11 the JNA, set aside to be destroyed. General Dusan Pekic, one of the

12 functionaries of the Association of Serbs from Croatia, using his private

13 contacts and channels, because he was a well-known, famous commander from

14 World War II, one of the most able generals the JNA ever had, and although

15 he had been a partisan, I speak very highly of him, so he had good

16 contacts. And using his private contacts with certain officers, he

17 managed to obtain those weapons which had been earmarked for destruction.

18 Am I correct in saying this? You mentioned Dusan Pekic in your

19 report.

20 A. Yes, Your Honours, in general terms I'm familiar with that, but I

21 would just like to refer also to my report, English page 40 of part 2,

22 where Mr. Seselj himself makes a number of statements on the weaponry of

23 SRS/SCP volunteers.

24 In 65 ter number 750, he talks about the fact that SRS volunteers

25 since recently possess the most modern weapons, and this is a statement he

1 makes in November 1991.

2 In November 1993, Mr. Seselj states that weapons were received

3 from the army and the police.

4 So just to complete the answer given by Mr. Seselj.

5 Q. And what do you care what I said in 1993, Mr. Theunens? What sort

6 of evidence is that, something I said in a speech or an interview in 1993?

7 What kind of evidence do you consider that to be, as an expert?

8 A. I consider all the public statements by -- in the context of this

9 report, I consider the public statements made by Mr. Seselj of relevance.

10 It's certainly material I would consider. And then applying the

11 methodology I explained earlier, I would look for corroboration and then

12 see whether the information included in the statement by Mr. Seselj is

13 corroborated by other sources. And if it is, I would include it in my

14 report, independent of the time period Mr. Seselj made the statements.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we move on, Mr. Seselj,

16 we have been given a document in B/C/S by the Registrar, Mr. Seselj. I

17 don't know what the contents of this document is, but let me just draw

18 your attention to the fact that apparently this document relates to a

19 protected witness, as of today. Therefore, if you intend to use this

20 document, we'll need to move into private session to deal with this

21 particular document.

22 Please proceed.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President, I'll tell you

24 what this document is about, which I just received by fax from Belgrade,

25 from my legal advisers, when we finish the examination of this witness.

1 It concerns another issue, but it's my duty to inform you of it today.

2 It's a problem that has newly arisen, but it has nothing to do with the

3 examination of this witness.

4 Q. Mr. Theunens, have you found certain contradictions in the

5 statements I made in various periods of time? For example, in 1991, at a

6 press conference, I stated that we obtained these obsolete weapons from

7 Hungary and that a Hungarian minister was involved in the shipment. In

8 1993, I attacked Milosevic and his police, saying they had given this to

9 us.

10 Do I have the right, as a politician, to launch smoke screens in

11 certain situations for a certain purpose?

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.

13 MR. MARCUSSEN: This cannot be answered by the witness. He's a

14 military expert. Whatever his opinion about what would be legitimate

15 political statements by the accused is irrelevant. Whether -- the first

16 part, whether the witness had noticed any discrepancies in the accused's

17 statements that are the basis for his report, now, that might be a fair

18 question, but these things about what he, as a politician, is allowed to

19 say is -- has nothing to do with the expertise of this witness.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. President, I am a

21 politician at all times, even when here in the courtroom. I remain a

22 politician and active on the Serbian political scene, extremely active.

23 As a politician in 1991 and 1993, I spoke about the sources of

24 arming the volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party. In 1991, I accused

25 the Hungarian minister. In 1993, I accused Milosevic, now, with the

1 exclusive aim of protecting the real source of the weaponry, and that's

2 the essence of my question. And now I come to a new question, another

3 question, after that.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As we are all here to discover

5 the truth, you are saying that in 1991, you made statements. This was to

6 protect the real source. I assume that you're also in favour of the

7 truth. All the more reason to put a question to the witness and say, "In

8 1991, I said such-and-such, but the purpose of this was such-and-such. If

9 I'm telling you this now, the arms came through this channel, do you agree

10 with me?" And like that, we can move forward.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness confirmed

12 it when I mentioned General Pekic a moment ago, but then he happened to

13 remember my statement in 1993, which I made when I was in this terrible

14 clash with Milosevic, when Milosevic was arresting volunteers en masse, so

15 I used everything at my disposal, any means that I had, to hit Milosevic,

16 defending my own people. I would lay down my life for them, let alone

17 make smoke screens in public, set up smoke screens in public.

18 However, my next question:

19 Q. Did the police have depots, warehouses, with so many weapons in

20 the first place, and did the police have this type of weapon: The

21 Thompson, the Spagin-type weapon, the M-56, the M-48? You, as a military

22 expert, must have known of at least one police depot with weapons like

23 that if the police indeed had something like that. To cut a long story

24 short, we see that it's impossible that the police had these weapons, and

25 if it didn't have the weapons, it couldn't have provided them and supplied

1 the volunteers. General Pekic supplied us with those weapons because,

2 through secret channels, he managed to come by those weapons before they

3 were destroyed. That's my thesis.

4 You mentioned General Pekic and you know that he had a role in

5 sending the volunteers out and in equipping them, so that's the essence of

6 the matter.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you confirm or deny that the

8 arms were given to the volunteers through the channel of General Pekic,

9 who was able, through his networks, to send arms who seemingly were

10 designed for destruction? Can you confirm Mr. Seselj's theory or not?

11 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I confirm that thesis, but it's not

12 the only channel. I am aware that in -- I'm not sure if it was 1989 or

13 1990, that, for example -- that in Serbia, weapons of the civil defence

14 and also weapons that were used or could be used in time of conflict or

15 other condition when there was a requirement to do so, to protect

16 factories and so on, were all confiscated or brought together, and I'm not

17 sure anymore whether that was done by the Ministry of Defence or the

18 Ministry of Interior.

19 Just to come back to Pekic, I think in any organised country, and

20 the SFRY was certainly an organised country in 1990, you cannot just

21 redistribute weapons through private channel -- channels. Procedures have

22 to be followed, documents have to be established, and so on and so on. So

23 the police most likely didn't have any Thompsons or M-84's or other old

24 weapons in its equipment, but one cannot rule out that the police or the

25 Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Defence of the Republic of

1 Serbia played a role in organising the transit or redistribution of these

2 weapons, and that's what I was trying to say.

3 Q. You're now guessing. That's guesswork. You haven't got a shred

4 of evidence that up to September 1991, that the Ministry of Defence, that

5 the JNA or the Serbian police from Serbia took part in any of that.

6 You mentioned 1990. Now, in 1990, Yugoslavia still looked like a

7 well-ordered state. Now, in 1991, there was chaos and people were leaving

8 the JNA, Croatian generals were leaving the JNA day by day. We would just

9 hear one person left, the other person left, one taking a whole truckload

10 of documents, the other one taking goodness knows what else. So the JNA

11 was undergoing a situation of chaos. And in that chaos, it is possible

12 that General Pekic told a colonel over there who was in charge of

13 destroying old weapons, out-of-date weapons that were dangerous to the

14 person using them, because what would happen would be that the barrel of a

15 Thompson would explode and could injure the man shooting, so he could tell

16 the man, "Don't destroy that. Draw up a record and say that you destroyed

17 it, but I'm going to drive in a truck and take the weapons away." Is that

18 possible, Mr. Theunens, in 1991, with all the chaos that went on?

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Without speculating, because

20 there has perhaps been some speculation here. It seems that in 1991, the

21 situation was chaotic. The Croatian officers and generals are leaving

22 their positions, seemingly the JNA is no longer commanded by anyone, and

23 General Pekic then intervenes and may have asked those people who were

24 keeping these weapons to hand them out. Is that a possibility or not,

25 given all the information you were able to gather, or can't you say

1 anything about this?

2 A. Your Honours, I stand on my previous answer. I mean, the answer I

3 gave to the previous question, there was chaos in certain areas and on

4 certain levels, but I do not think, based on the documentation I reviewed

5 and the information I have consulted, that this is sufficient to explain

6 the arming of Serbs in certain areas of Croatia, in particular looking at

7 the scale of these activities.

8 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Theunens --

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: So where did the weapons come from?

11 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I have seen evidence indeed that

12 weapons came from depots, JNA depots, where these obsolete or outdated

13 weapons were being stored. I've also seen information that weapons that

14 had been put -- TO weapons that had been put under JNA control in 1990,

15 May 1990, were then redistributed. I've also seen information, the

16 example I mentioned with the submachine-guns or machine-guns - I've forgot

17 exactly which type it was - that were used in Serbia by I'm not sure

18 whether it was civil defence or whether they were part of defence

19 structures that should protect factories and other facilities of

20 importance, that these weapons were collected at one moment in time with

21 the intervention of the Ministry of Defence and the Minister of the

22 Interior of the Republic of Serbia, and that weapons of that type were

23 then later found among Serbs in Croatia, as these were, for example,

24 Thompsons and M-84.

25 Q. When did the Ministry of Defence of Serbia and the Ministry of the

1 Interior collect those weapons? What year was that?

2 A. Your Honours, as I indicated, I'm not sure of the year. I think I

3 recall it's 1989 or 1990. I remember this information and a lot of things

4 from -- I think those were statements made at -- at one moment in time by

5 Vice-Admiral Jokic who was around that time period or in 1991, during a

6 certain time period in 1991, Minister of Defence of the Republic of

7 Serbia.

8 Q. Mr. Theunens, if the Ministry of Defence of Serbia and the MUP of

9 Serbia, in 1989 and 1990, and in 1989 the Ministry of the Defence of

10 Serbia didn't exist at all, as far as I remember, it was only in 1990 that

11 it came into existence, but if they gathered up the weapons then, then I

12 assume they sent it out to JNA warehouses straightaway; isn't that right?

13 The moment they handed them over to the JNA, all their links to those

14 weapons ceased. The JNA collected up all the Territorial Defence weapons

15 so that it could keep it under its control, because you can feel tension

16 in the air and the possible abuse or misuse of those weapons, and there

17 was the first conflict between the JNA and the Croatian leadership at the

18 time.

19 MR. MARCUSSEN: There is no question being put. There's just a

20 statement without a question.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is a statement.

22 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Well, is what I'm telling you right, is it correct? There, you

24 have a question. Is what I've just said correct?

25 A. Your Honours, it doesn't correspond with my recollection, and I

1 would just like to correct that indeed in 1989, we don't have a Ministry

2 of Defence, we have a Secretariat for People's Defence.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I'd just like to let

4 you know that you have five minutes left, and at 11.15, that will be it,

5 as far as you are concerned.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'll complete within that

7 time, Mr. President.

8 Q. Mr. Theunens, do you know that some other pensioned-off generals

9 of the JNA, together with Dusan Pekic, took part in collecting up

10 obsolete, written-off JNA weapons for the Serb villages in Slavonia,

11 Dalmatia and in other places? For example, General Radojica Nenezic, have

12 you heard of him? He was born in Slavonia. Pekic is from Kordun. They

13 are all generals who were born in the area of Serbian Krajina.

14 A. I'm not familiar with the name of the second general, Your

15 Honours.

16 Q. In greater -- in "Velika Serbia," did you see that the volunteers

17 of the Serbian Radical Party from Borovo Selo, who were victorious over

18 the hundreds of policemen on the 2nd of May, Croatian policemen on the 2nd

19 of May, Djuric promoted them and gave them certain ranks. And I assume

20 the Prosecutor provided you with that article that appeared in "Velika

21 Serbia"; do you remember that?

22 A. Your Honours, it's not a matter that I include information

23 provided by the Prosecutor in my report. I selected all the documents and

24 all the information included in my report myself, without any intervention

25 of the Prosecutor, except for that, okay, I work in the Office of the

1 Prosecutor and I have to consult the databases of the Office of the

2 Prosecutor.

3 Now, I am familiar with that information, and this is actually

4 included in page 104, part 2 of the English version of the report, and

5 it's based on 65 ter number 320. That is the "Velika Serbia" article

6 entitled: "When a Serbian trumpet sounds in Borovo Selo."

7 Q. Do you know that at the end of August, the leadership of the

8 Serbian Radical Party, and I personally, had several talks with

9 high-ranking officers of the JNA, generals, colonels, captains of naval

10 vessels, about sending volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party to the JNA,

11 and after that Ljubisa Petkovic sent out instructions according to which

12 all the volunteers should return from the Slavonian villages in order to

13 regroup? Are you aware of that?

14 A. I'm not aware of the specific talks, but I'm aware of the fact

15 that there were contacts between officials of the Serbian Radical Party

16 and certain high-ranking JNA officers, but I'm not sure that this was only

17 in 1991 or also in 1992, and even when the JNA transformed into the VJ,

18 and some names are included in my report.

19 Q. Perhaps this will be my last question, so please listen to me

20 carefully.

21 Is it true and correct that as of September 1991, until the 19th

22 of May, 1992, the Serbian Radical Party did not send its volunteers

23 anywhere outside the composition of the JNA, outside any cooperation with

24 the JNA? Do you agree with that, from September 1991 to the 19th of May,

25 1992? The 19th of May, 1992, is the date of the ultimatum for the

1 withdrawal of the JNA from Bosnia-Herzegovina.

2 A. Your Honours, I think the -- the question sounds very simple, but

3 the answer is more complicated, because in Western Slavonia, when we're

4 discussing the events in Vocin, and I mentioned earlier the letter by

5 General Talic, when he's asked to provide information on the events in

6 Vocin in December 1991, and I'm talking now about 65 ter number 1037,

7 Talic says that the SRS volunteers -- or that the forces of the TO in

8 Slavonia, in the villages of Hum and Vocin near Podravska Slatina, were in

9 that area. We have established in the report the links between those

10 local Serb TO units and SRS volunteers. And Talic says, "Well, look, they

11 were not in the composition of the 5th Corps."

12 Now, for what Vukovar is concerned, there the answer is "yes"

13 without any doubt. Now, for what Bosnia-Herzegovina is concerned, we know

14 from the documents that in Bosanski Samac, the answer is "yes." For other

15 areas like, for example, Zvornik, the documents of the 17 Corps suggest

16 that there is no direct involvement of the 17 Corps in the -- in the

17 events, including the participation of SRS-affiliated volunteers. Whether

18 this has been agreed upon on a higher level of the JNA, I have not been

19 able to establish, but the fact that these volunteers are able to be

20 deployed, and as we saw at Boskoski Samac, that they can use helicopters

21 and so on to be sent, indeed shows that there is cooperation and agreement

22 on the highest level within the JNA for these SRS volunteers to be sent to

23 these areas during that time period.

24 Q. Two very short questions. When was it that Talic gave the

25 statement you just quoted, what year?

1 A. This is the 29 -- this is a letter he sends on the 29th of March,

2 1992, Your Honours.

3 Q. And do the papers tell you that the entire Territorial Defence of

4 Western Slavonia including the volunteers, was on the salary list of the

5 5th Corps? Do the papers testify to that, and the commander of the entire

6 Territorial Defence in Western Slavonia, was he an active colonel of the

7 JNA by the name of Trbojevic? Is that correct? Do you know when the

8 volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party were sent to take part in the

9 operation to liberate Zvornik, that the Bubanj Potok barracks in Belgrade,

10 the JNA barracks, they went there and took over the uniforms and weapons

11 from there, and from there they went to Zvornik, escorted by a police

12 escort, they didn't go by bus or by bike like you? Are you aware of that?

13 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, there are four questions in this

14 particular passage of the accused's purported questioning of the witness.

15 Now, if the accused wants the witness to answer this question, I think he

16 should be allowed at least the time to deal with each one of the four, or

17 the accused should reformulate this question if he still has time.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the problem is that

19 this witness would need 40 minutes to answer these four questions, that's

20 the problem, whereas you have restricted my time. So what can I do about

21 that?

22 You know, sometimes I can ask rhetorical questions that I don't

23 expect an answer to, because my questions in themselves are very

24 convincing and illustrate my point.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There are four sub-questions, so

1 the question is a lengthy one. Can you answer this question?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours, and I will be -- I will try to be

3 as short as possible.

4 Trbojevic, the answer is "yes." Zvornik, the answer is "yes."

5 For the payment, the answer is very short, I do not know, because from the

6 documents of the war staff, one can see that SRS volunteers are also being

7 paid in Belgrade through the SRS war staff. I don't say "by" but through

8 the assistance of the SRS war staff.

9 So it could well be that a number of volunteers were on the pay

10 list of the 5th Corps, but we also have these documents.

11 And the fourth question, I forgot. I mean, I don't see it on the

12 transcript anymore, Your Honours.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do I have any more time,

14 Mr. President?

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your time is up. You have had

16 five hours, but if you have one last question which you were unable to put

17 to the witness and which is very important, then just put it to the

18 witness and we'll stop after that.

19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]

20 Q. You know the structure of the war staff of the Serbian Radical

21 Party. Well, you're well acquainted with it, and you know who compiled

22 it. And in the examination-in-chief, we were instructed not to mention

23 names, so I'm not going to do so.

24 Now, this war staff, according to its structure, could it have

25 been at all an organ of command in any way, command of military actions,

1 operations, tactical attacks, defence operations and so on? Was it

2 capacitated and professional enough to do that or was it a war staff which

3 could only rally volunteers, take them to the barracks so that they could

4 put on uniforms, and take weapons, to keep records of who they are, to see

5 to the funerals of those killed, to see to paying out financial assistance

6 to the families of killed volunteers, to send the sick and wounded for

7 treatment, and so on and so forth? It's a long question, but it's simple

8 in essence.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before you reply, this is a

10 question I've put already, but please answer it nonetheless, because it's

11 an important question and it could very well conclude the

12 cross-examination.

13 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I have not come across information

14 indicating that the SRS war staff gets involved in strictly operational

15 matters and is commanding military activity or actions and operations from

16 Belgrade. However, I have tried to show in the report that the activities

17 of the SRS war staff go beyond what Mr. Seselj has stated in his question

18 and also include the issuing of instructions to volunteers, no matter how

19 general these volunteers -- these instructions are, and that the war staff

20 also keeps information on the way how the volunteers carried out their

21 duties or their activities, including disciplinary matters, and as such is

22 in a position to act against volunteers -- SRS volunteers who have

23 violated certain disciplinary provisions.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more short question. Just

25 three seconds, please.

1 Q. Which sanctions could the war staff proclaim if a volunteer was

2 undisciplined to punish them? Was the only sanction to exclude them from

3 the Serbian Radical Party so that that volunteer could no longer be sent

4 to the front anywhere? Was that the only sanction that the war staff

5 could take for lack of discipline on a soldier's part, a volunteer's part?

6 A. Your Honours, I -- this is not the only sanction, because like any

7 citizen who becomes aware of the fact that -- or the information that

8 somebody -- that another citizen has committed a crime which could be --

9 could amount to a -- excuse me, I will rephrase that, that any other

10 citizen has committed an act which could amount to a crime, well, I think

11 in any country you have the duty to inform the competent authorities, who

12 would then do their job. I don't claim in the report that it was up to

13 the SRS war staff to put people in prison, but at least --

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall rephrase this question.

15 Have you seen any documents of the Serbian Radical Party stating

16 that it would have been informed of crimes through reports that would have

17 been forwarded to the SRS? Was the party informed of the existence of

18 crimes committed by members of the Serbian Radical Party? Have you seen

19 any report to that effect, i.e., that would have been notified to the war

20 staff?

21 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I have only seen documents where the

22 war staff is notified of -- of lack of discipline, including a document

23 which is 65 ter 657, where the war staff sends a letter to the commander

24 of Leva Supoderica to inform them in writing about --

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I was about to call

1 you "Commander." You know full well what the difference is in the army

2 between disciplinary matters which come under military discipline and

3 crimes that are committed. That is another story. When you say that

4 crimes are committed, are you talking about a breach in matters of

5 discipline? Was the war staff entitled to deal with disciplinary issues

6 or was it only a political body?

7 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, in 65 ter number 657, it is the war

8 staff -- I mean, the chief of the war staff himself who asks the commander

9 of Leva Supoderica, on the 9th of November, 1991, to inform "us," i.e.,

10 the war staff in writing "about the soldiers that you have sent back due

11 to lack of discipline or any other reason, as well as about the soldiers

12 who have shown exceptional bravery."

13 It is clear that there is a difference between violations of

14 discipline and crimes, but they are related to each other if -- or my

15 conclusion is that if the war staff asks to be informed about disciplinary

16 issues, it would not -- it would be logical that they would also ask to be

17 informed about crimes, because when a disciplinary issue has been

18 observed, it's not clear whether this amounts to a crime or not from the

19 very beginning, and so there has to be an investigation. So my conclusion

20 is, well, if the war staff asks to know about disciplinary issues, it

21 would make sense they would also want to know about criminal issues. For

22 the disciplinary matters, as Mr. Seselj says, it appears that the only

23 sanction is to remove that volunteer from the SRS and prevent him from

24 going to the battlefield again as an SRS volunteer.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall give the floor to

1 Mr. Marcussen, because I'm looking at the clock and there is a redirect,

2 and my colleague would also like to put questions.

3 You are saying that you had this document which indicates that the

4 war staff is asking to be informed of any breach of discipline, but the

5 question I've asked you is this: Are there any documents that inform the

6 war staff of the existence of crimes? I do stress the words "existence of

7 crimes."

8 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I have not seen such a document

9 addressed to the SRS war staff.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That was my

11 question.

12 The Prosecution now has the floor for its redirect.

13 Re-examination by Mr. Marcussen:

14 MR. MARCUSSEN: Thank you, Your Honours.

15 I think I can be brief, so I hope we can finish today.

16 For Your Honours' information, I'm going to concentrate on one

17 matter that came up yesterday and today, and it relates to the issue of

18 Vojvoda and the precise -- well, the implications of the appointments of

19 Vojvoda. And I would be showing Your Honours two videos -- two clips that

20 I'd ask the expert to comment on.

21 The first clip is 65 ter number 1836, and we will be showing it

22 here in Sanction, the programme we use to show these sort of things. It's

23 a clip which lasts about four minutes. It is from Serbian Television in

24 Bosnia. It is from the 15th of May, 1993, and it relates to the order

25 number 124 where -- which proclaims a number of people Vojvodas. So that

1 is the 65 ter number 1841. So that is the actual order that we have been

2 discussing, and the video clip number, I should maybe also indicate the

3 ERN number for it, it is V000-0278, and it is clip C.

4 And maybe we could show that.

5 [Videotape played]

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]

7 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] New Serbian Chetnik Vojvodas. Order

8 number 124. As the only Chetnik Vojvoda directly engaged in the present

9 day struggle for the liberation of the Serbian people following the

10 tradition of the Serbian people and the Serbian Chetniks for exceptional

11 achievements in the war, great heroism and proven skills in warfare of the

12 most distinguished of the commanders, I hereby pronounce the oath of the

13 18 new Vojvodas was something that Romanija Mountain was very happy about.

14 It is an oath it has not heard for 50 years. I swear, as the Serbian

15 Chetnik Vojvoda, I swear to God and St. Sava -- I swear by God and St.

16 Sava that I will fight with all my might for the freedom of the Serbian

17 people, that I will fight with all my might for the freedom of the Serbian

18 people and the restoration of a unified Serbian state in the Balkans which

19 will encompass all Serbian lands, and the restoration of a unified Serbian

20 state in the Balkans which will encompass all Serbian lands, so help me

21 God, so help me God. Amen, Amen.

22 Good luck and bless you. May God give you a long life.

23 One can trust them, that that's how it's going to be. The rank

24 of Chetnik Vojvoda was bestowed on the following Serbian heroes from all

25 Serbian areas: Zdravko Abramovic, Slavko Aleksic, Mirko Blagojevic,

1 Branislav Vakic, Nedejlko Vidakovic, Miroslav Vukovic, Cele, Branislav

2 Gavrilovic-Brne, Milika Dacevic, Ceko, Zoran Drazilovic, Cica, Todor

3 Lazic, Milan Lancuzanin, Kameni, Mitar Maksimovic, Manda, Tomislav

4 Nikolic, Jovo Ostojic, Ljubisa Petkovic and Srecko Radovanovic.

5 Brne, Brne, turn around just a little bit so I can capture you a

6 bit. Ah, that's good. Is that Crna?

7 Then Sokolac, a monument city to Serbhood where Vojvoda Seselj

8 spoke to the people in his capacity as the president of the Serbian

9 Radical Party.

10 If it comes to a foreign intervention, thousands upon thousands of

11 our volunteers will cross the River Drina and come to you, all of us whom

12 you see here today will be with you here and we will share your fate.

13 After the rally, Mr. Seselj, accompanied by the newly-appointed

14 Vojvodas, headed to Pale to a meeting with Dr. Radovan Karadzic, the

15 president of Republika Srpska.

16 MR. MARCUSSEN:

17 Q. Mr. Theunens, have you seen this video before?

18 A. I did, Your Honours, and I included the transcript in my report.

19 It's 65 ter number 6062. It's in part 2 on page 78.

20 Q. And what conclusions did you draw from this and other

21 documentation you have seen with respect to the status of Vojvoda?

22 A. I mean, we went over this during the previous days, but I conclude

23 that Vojvodas are people with authority among the volunteers. Even if

24 they had command positions in SRS detachments prior to being appointed or

25 proclaimed Vojvoda, the fact that they are proclaimed Vojvoda shows that

1 Mr. Seselj wants to confirm their authority and, as such, their prestige

2 among the volunteers.

3 Something I forgot to mention yesterday but is included in my

4 report is on the English page 85 in part 2 of the report, where the

5 Federal Minister of Defence, Pavle Bulatovic, so the Federal Republic of

6 Yugoslavia, on the 5th of July, 1993, when the matter of the appointment

7 or the proclamation of Vojvodas is being discussed by the FRY Supreme

8 Defence Council, Bulatovic states that: "The granting of Vojvoda titles by

9 Seselj means that he must have an army. Otherwise, why would someone be

10 dubbed a duke just for himself?"

11 And so on and so on. I mean, this can be found on page 85.

12 MR. MARCUSSEN: Now, I would like the witness to look at another

13 video. This is much shorter, Your Honours. It is from 65 ter number --

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a question, please.

15 We've seen this video clip right now, and we note that there's a

16 religious connotation in that ceremony, since we see the men cross

17 themselves, and we see that furthermore there are two men in civilian

18 clothes, whereas all the others are undoubtedly wearing military clothes.

19 So we see that they are wearing military clothes, and I thought that these

20 men were members of a military unit. So would you agree that the Vojvoda

21 we see on these images belonged to a military unit?

22 THE WITNESS: Indeed, Your Honours, most of the uniforms I could

23 recognise were uniforms of the VRS, so the armed force of the Serbs in

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And we could see, for example, Slavko Aleksic is one

25 of the people -- one of the persons with the long beard.

1 MR. MARCUSSEN: I do believe we will actually --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right.

3 MR. MARCUSSEN: We will get to see more of Aleksic now.

4 The next video is 65 ter number 6048. The ERN number is

5 V000-1506, clip B. It is -- it's part of a recording that was done for a

6 documentary called "Bloody Bosnia" by Maggie O'Kane, and according to the

7 information I have, it's from the 7th of April, 1994.

8 Let's have a look at the video, please.

9 I should say that we don't have an English transcript of this

10 video. We will provide that. It's a two-minute video. The language

11 spoken on the video is English. We have provided the accused with the

12 B/C/S translation of what is being said, and of course the interpreters

13 have that transcript too. So let's look at the video.

14 [Videotape played]

15 MR. MARCUSSEN:

16 Q. Mr. Theunens, is this a video you have seen before today?

17 A. No, Your Honours, I haven't seen this video before, but --

18 Q. Does that in any way change your analysis of the meaning of

19 "Vojvoda"?

20 A. No, Your Honours, and it also shows an interesting perspective of

21 the nature of the volunteers, or motivation, I'm sorry.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is an

23 impermissible manner of continuing the examination-in-chief. This is not

24 redirect. I'm very happy to have seen this video for the first time in my

25 life, and I'm very proud of it - please don't misunderstand me - but I

1 think the Prosecutor's behaviour is impermissible. He's continuing his

2 examination-in-chief, instead of attempting to rehabilitate his witness

3 where he stumbled in cross-examination. Instead, he's simply continuing

4 his examination-in-chief, and it's simply impermissible.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Redirect must be in relation to

6 the direct examination, and the direct examination concerned -- included a

7 number of questions related to Vojvodas. So this can be completed,

8 Mr. Marcussen. However, the last video clip, I saw the image of a man

9 dressed in black. What are those clothes?

10 THE WITNESS: It didn't look like official uniform. I saw a

11 religious connotation in it, because the individual was also wearing a

12 cross. And I know that members of the Orthodox church, I mean clergymen,

13 wear a black dress. I cannot say any more about it.

14 We also saw a person in civilian attire, with a civilian hat, and

15 he had a cockade on the hat. So it shows the nature of some of the

16 volunteers we are dealing with.

17 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, it goes very fast on these videos,

18 and I appreciate that. I just wanted to clarify what is being said on the

19 video is that this is a volunteer that had come from New York, he had been

20 there the summer before, participated in the fighting, and he has come

21 back. So I think when you review the video, it will be clear, that he's a

22 volunteer and so he would seem to be one of the people under Aleksic.

23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, there was also a gentleman in a

24 uniform, sporting a beard. Do you know who that was?

25 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I've seen Slavko Aleksic, and I'm not

1 sure about the other individual in uniform. I think there was one other

2 or two other individuals in uniform, but I cannot recognise them.

3 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, I request -- I respectfully request

4 the admission of these two videos, so that would be the admission of

5 V000-0278, clip C, and V000-1506, clip B.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Two numbers, Registrar, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: They will be Exhibit number P255, and clip B will

8 be Exhibit number P256.

9 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honour, this completes my re-examination --

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President --

11 MR. MARCUSSEN: I should not be cut off, please.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection, I have an

13 objection, and I do have the right to interrupt.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a moment. I'll give you

15 the floor for your objection, but I would like Mr. Marcussen to finish

16 before.

17 What did you mean to say, Mr. Marcussen?

18 MR. MARCUSSEN: No, sorry, if it's an objection to the admission

19 of these documents -- these videos, then it's fine. I have two other

20 matters that I need to address with the Court before I finish, but it's

21 not necessary to have the witness for that.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, what is your

23 objection?

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you see Mr. Marcussen was

25 nervous for no reason. My objection is to the second video. I demand

1 that the OTP find the entire footage of this broadcast and disclose it to

2 me, and also that the entire footage be admitted into evidence. I don't

3 need this in the case of the first clip because I know exactly what it is,

4 but as for the second clip, because there are journalists' comments on it,

5 I want to see the entire footage. And when I see that, then I will be

6 able to state my position on it.

7 This was not an exhibit before, and you can see that the expert

8 never saw it before, either. This is a guerrilla sort of way of

9 introducing evidence.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you knew about the

11 existence of both these video clips for a long time, because they had been

12 disclosed to you. You seem to be discovering these clips today, but I

13 would strongly advise you to look closely to all the video clips that have

14 been disclosed to you. If you had done so before, you could have asked

15 the Prosecution to give you the entire programme, if there is a larger

16 programme, I don't know, in order to possibly object. As you very well

17 know, the decision made about admittance takes into account the issue of

18 relevance, but in any case the weight will be determined at the end, based

19 on all the evidence. So you will have an opportunity, with future

20 witnesses, to oppose the content of this video or -- of this video clip or

21 even when you hear your witnesses, to ask them questions about this guy

22 who comes from New York and explains that he took part in the struggles.

23 Mr. Marcussen, what were the issues you wanted to address?

24 MR. MARCUSSEN: Your Honours, the first issue arises from an

25 omission on my part.

1 We have discussed and the witness testified about 65 ter number

2 1023. He -- it has actually been discussed a number of times, but he --

3 in particular, I asked him about it at transcript page 4029. As the

4 debate went on, I forgot to request an exhibit number for this document.

5 I would like to request an exhibit number for that. That's the first

6 thing.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. So it's document 1023,

8 because I heard my interpreter say "1063". Is it 1023?

9 MR. MARCUSSEN: Indeed, Your Honour, 23.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, give us a number for

11 this document, please.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Mr. President, I

13 demand that we see that document on the screen. I cannot remember

14 documents by their number. If it was not admitted at the time it was

15 mentioned, we have to see it here.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Document 1023 is in binder --

17 MR. MARCUSSEN: It is in binder number 2, Your Honour, and I can

18 read out the title. I'm sure the accused would recognise this, because he

19 has, himself, been putting questions about it, I believe. It is -- well,

20 the second page is: "Conclusions of the evaluation of the situation in

21 the BiH territory in the zone of responsibility of the 2nd Military

22 District." And the things that were discussed from this document were

23 basically arming of paramilitary --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I remember that this

25 document has been discussed.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no objection. I simply

2 wanted to see the document so I would know what document it was. Nothing

3 else.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A number, please.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P257.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 MR. MARCUSSEN: The second issue is unrelated to the evidence of

8 the witness. I don't know whether you want to release the witness first,

9 or I can go on as -- as Your Honours please.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I already said I wanted to discuss

11 some administrative matters, and I did that before, so I should have

12 precedence.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but, Mr. Marcussen, my

14 first question is the following: Have you finished with your redirect?

15 MR. MARCUSSEN: Yes, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Judge Harhoff has a few

17 questions.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.

19 Questioned by the Court:

20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Theunens, having read your report and having

21 heard you giving testimony here, I have a few questions relating to the

22 war staff.

23 First of all, it is unclear to me whether Mr. Seselj himself was a

24 member of the SRS war staff. Can you clarify?

25 A. Indeed, Your Honours. According to the documents included in my

1 report -- I mean, the documents I include in my report do not include

2 information on whether or not Mr. Seselj was a member of the war staff.

3 Based on the documents, somebody else was in charge of it.

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: So Mr. Seselj was never, himself, a direct member

5 of the war staff; is that how we should understand what you are saying?

6 A. Your Honours, what I'm saying is that according to the documents,

7 Mr. Seselj was not a member of the war staff. Now, whether he was a

8 member outside the context of the documents, that's something I cannot

9 establish, but I just want to clarify your very categoric conclusion.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you know if Mr. Seselj took part in the war

11 staff's meetings?

12 A. I know from the documents that deal with the dispatching of SRS

13 volunteers that are discussed in the report, that they stated the

14 detachment has been sent following the orders of the war staff and

15 Mr. Seselj, but I cannot establish whether this means that Mr. Seselj was

16 discussing the deployment directly with the war staff or how that decision

17 was taken by Seselj -- Mr. Seselj and the war staff.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

19 We spoke yesterday or the day before, I can't remember, about the

20 issue of whether two gentlemen had been sent from Belgrade to lead the

21 fight around Sarajevo. I think it was in Ilidza. And the Chamber ended

22 by accepting that Mr. Seselj or the SRS had not sent these two gentlemen

23 from Belgrade to Ilidza, but that these two gentlemen came from Sarajevo,

24 themselves, and therefore joined the local SRS party organisation in

25 Sarajevo, out of which they then took upon themselves to lead the armed

1 fight in Ilidza.

2 Now, my question in extension of that discussion we had yesterday

3 is: What were the relations, in general, between the headquarters in

4 Belgrade and the party organisations in -- where we had them, of course,

5 in Bosnia and Herzegovina and also in Croatia? Can you explain to us a

6 bit how the -- sort of the command structure or the communication

7 structure was between the centre in Belgrade and the party organisations

8 in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

9 A. Your Honours, with your permission, I would first like to address

10 the issue of the two gentlemen who were -- whether they were sent by

11 Belgrade or not, and I believe we were talking about Slavko Aleksic and

12 Branislav Gavrilovic. I would like to make a slight correction to

13 Branislav Gavrilovic, because we know that he was active in Croatia in

14 1991 and early 1992. And according to an article describing his

15 activities, an article published in "Velika Serbia," and this is 65 ter

16 2164, Gavrilovic, according to this article, returns to Sarajevo based on

17 the permission he has received from Mr. Seselj and the SRS war staff. So

18 I think that's an important clarification we have to make for the first

19 part.

20 For the second part, I have not been able to establish the nature

21 of the contacts between SRS chapters in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the SRS in

22 Belgrade. I have included one document where the chief of the SRS war

23 staff authorises Nikodin Cavic, who is the president of the SRS in

24 Banja Luka, to gather volunteers, establishing in this letter Petkovic --

25 or, excuse me, the president of the SRS war staff also established a

1 number of criteria that have to be applied before selecting volunteers.

2 That is the furthest I can go.

3 JUDGE HARHOFF: I appreciate your answer, but I would,

4 nevertheless, seek to have some clarification. And let me do this by

5 putting a question to you, and you can say "yes" or "no" if you know.

6 Would, say, the local SRS party organisation in a particular area,

7 in Sarajevo, Mostar, or Western Slavonia, would they be able, on their

8 own, to recruit local men to form part of volunteers for the purpose of

9 combat, or, and this is the alternative, or were volunteers only recruited

10 from the SRS organisation in Belgrade?

11 A. The letter from the chief of the SRS war staff to Cavic indicates

12 that a local -- or a chapter of the SRS in Bosnia-Herzegovina is

13 authorised by Belgrade to recruit volunteers, and so they don't do it on

14 their own initiative, according to this letter.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I have to intervene.

16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, if I may finish.

17 So are you saying that if a local SRS party organisation somewhere

18 in Bosnia-Herzegovina actually recruited volunteers and trained them for

19 combat, that would be done according to an authorisation from the SRS

20 organisation in Belgrade; is that how we are to conclude?

21 A. Indeed, Your Honours, that is what the document says, and I can

22 only say what the document says. Maybe there were other examples, but I

23 am not aware of those, so I can only conclude or draw conclusions from

24 that document, which is included in my report, but I don't know the 65 ter

25 number by heart.

1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to intervene, Judges, because

3 the witness here is misleading you. He's mentioning a document dated 1991

4 in which Ljubisa Petkovic authorises Nikodin Cavic from Banja Luka to send

5 volunteers of the Serbian Radical Party to Western Slavonia.

6 Nikodin Cavic at the time was the initiator of the formation of the

7 Serbian Radical Party in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The party was still not

8 registered in Bosnia-Herzegovina, however. And because of that, he was

9 given instructions from Ljubisa Petkovic.

10 In 1992, the party was registered in Republika Srpska --

11 MR. MARCUSSEN: It's not for the accused to comment on this. He's

12 testifying about the contents of the document. The document is on record.

13 The time will come for him to lead evidence on this. This is not proper.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to prevent the Trial Chamber

15 from being led astray, duped. The party, in 1992, was registered both in

16 Republika Srpska and in the Republika Srpska Krajina. There were four

17 Serbian radical parties: One in Serbia, an independent party; another in

18 Montenegro; a third in Republika Srpska; a fourth in Republika Srpska

19 Krajina. And they coordinated their work, but they were separate

20 political parties.

21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, you will have ample opportunity to

22 elicit this evidence from other witnesses. I don't think it makes any

23 sense for you to testify at this moment. So thank you.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

25 Mr. Theunens, let me thank you, because we've just concluded your

1 testimony. I'm going to let you go back to your customary work.

2 And I'd like to ask the usher to walk you out of the courtroom.

3 Yes, Mr. Mundis.

4 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm aware we need to

5 adjourn for the plenary, but I do have an issue or a few issues related to

6 the scheduling for next week that I would like to draw to the Chamber's

7 attention.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please do.

9 [The witness withdrew]

10 MR. MUNDIS: If we could please go into private session.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session, please.

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

13 [Private session]

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 4361-4367 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Prosecution -- are we in open

5 session?

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Prosecution provided you with

8 two documents which were not used during the examination-in-chief and,

9 therefore, were not admitted. Those two documents are very important

10 ones. One is under number 1312. It is a document of the State Security

11 Department in Belgrade on the 14th of May, 1992.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Marcussen.

13 MR. MARCUSSEN: I would like to discuss these documents in private

14 session. I know what the accused is referring to, but these documents are

15 the subject of a request. I think -- I'm not sure whether Your Honours'

16 ruling that has come out with respect to these particular documents is

17 caught up by that, so I think we have to --

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, let's move into private

19 session, because this is a pending question. Registrar, please.

20 [Private session]

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 4369-4372 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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 [Open session]

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now we are in open session.

24 We have come to the end of our hearing and shall resume our next

25 hearing on Tuesday at a quarter past 2.00.

1 Thank you.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction "at a quarter to 3.00."

3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.28

4 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 4th day

5 of March, 2008, at 2.45 p.m.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25