1 Monday, 28 April 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

5 JUDGE MAY: We're going to deal with some administrative matters

6 first this morning left over from our last hearing. Mr. Nice, it may be

7 convenient if we begin with at least the discussion on what it is that

8 needs to be resolved this morning. The matters which I have are the final

9 selection of Croatia Rule 92 bis witness.

10 MR. NICE: Yes, Mr. McKeon is ready to deal with that.

11 JUDGE MAY: The Foca transcript witnesses.

12 MR. NICE: Mr. Groome is ready to deal with that.

13 JUDGE MAY: Are there any other matters you want to deal with?

14 MR. NICE: After that, if I can just mention a couple of things, a

15 couple of minutes.

16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll begin with the 92 bis witnesses.

17 Mr. Kay, you're ready on that?

18 MR. KAY: Yes. I think we can save time because the general point

19 that we've seen run throughout all of the subsequent witnesses has been

20 the issue of the JNA as mentioned within those statements.

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

22 MR. KAY: Which has been the point that the amici have made on

23 behalf of the accused over the issue of cross-examination.

24 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, it may be convenient to deal with it with

25 you going first really, if you're in a position to.

1 MR. KAY: A little bit inconvenient, as I need to find those

2 statements.

3 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. McKeon is probably ready to go.

4 MR. McKEON: I'm ready.

5 JUDGE MAY: The numbers which I had were 1055, 1086, 1089, 1136,

6 1162, 1175, 1185, 1191, 1215, 1238.

7 MR. McKEON: Yes, Your Honour. I've tried to put these into

8 smaller groups of like witnesses for the convenience of the Court.

9 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

10 MR. McKEON: First of all, these -- I would note that these are

11 all crime base witnesses, and so to that extent would be cumulative of the

12 testimony of Grujic and Strinovic. The first group, I think, starts with

13 1086, also includes 1136 and 1191. These I would call, witnesses to

14 ethnic cleansing. Witness 1086 deals with the ethnic cleansing of the

15 Erdut area. Witness number 1136 deals with the ethnic cleansing of Ilok,

16 and Witness 1191 deals with the ethnic cleansing of Bapska. These

17 witnesses are all cumulative of the testimony of Mr. Selabaj who dealt

18 with the ethnic cleansing of Lovas. And I would also note that there has

19 been one 92 bis witness already admitted under 92 bis, and that will be

20 Witness C-1126 who dealt with the ethnic cleansing of another witness, so

21 I would group those into one group.

22 The next witness on the list I have would be 1238, which deals

23 with the Lovas minefield incident. We've already heard testimony on that

24 incident from [redacted], and I think the amici at least agrees that

25 this witness is cumulative of his testimony.

1 The next witness I would have would be 1175. This is a witness to

2 the Lovas farms incident, different incident from the Lovas minefield

3 incident. This is the person who buried some of the bodies which were

4 found on that. We have already considered under 92 bis the testimony of

5 C-1154, which was admitted under 92 bis for this incident. And also

6 C-1071, which was admitted under 92 bis. Actually, the testimony under

7 C-1071 and this particular witness deal with the very same victim. It's

8 testimony about the same person.

9 The next group deals with the two incidents at Dalj, paragraphs 50

10 and 51 of the indictment. That would be Witness C-1185 and Witness

11 C-1215.

12 For this incident, we have testimony in court already from C-025

13 and C-013, and then admitted under 92 bis already for these incidents are

14 C-1187 and 1140 for paragraph 51 and 1052 for paragraph 50.

15 Finally, the last group I have would be three witnesses, 1162,

16 1055, and 1089. These witnesses all deal with Arkan and killings that the

17 indictment alleges were committed by Arkan's men.

18 Witness 1162 will identify other -- was arrested by Arkan and will

19 identify other prisoners who were held by Arkan including some of the

20 victims named in our indictment.

21 C-1055 will testimony that after one of the victims was arrested,

22 the very next day he was told to move into the victim's house, indicating

23 some knowledge that the victim was not going to come back.

24 And then, finally, C-1089 deals with Klisa. He was arrested but

25 later released and will be able to identify some of the victims.

1 And I think that's the entire list, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. McKeon.

3 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

4 MR. KAY: We've now moved on since the original filing by the

5 amici curiae, and a number of these place are now familiar, so we cannot

6 dispute that they represent a cumulative basis of the evidence of the

7 Prosecutor. The issue that remains is that of cross-examination which we

8 contend should be permitted to the accused to cross-examine upon the

9 issues that are important to his case, and within the issues that are

10 relevant to the indictment is the issue of the JNA, and we have already

11 made objections in relation to that matter which the Trial Chamber has

12 ruled upon and permitted cross-examination, and so that applies again to

13 this batch of witnesses.

14 JUDGE MAY: Does it apply to all of them?

15 MR. KAY: It applies to -- I don't actually have my sheet here

16 with me, Your Honour, I apologise for that, but off my memory, it applies

17 to all, save two, witnesses who didn't mention the JNA.

18 JUDGE MAY: Well, I note 1089, 1162.

19 MR. KAY: Right. It was -- two witnesses was my memory.

20 JUDGE MAY: 1185. I don't know if you have your note to look at

21 over the adjournment.

22 MR. KAY: Yes. I can try and locate it. We moved courts as you

23 recollect on the last Thursday which put me in a bit of difficulty but it

24 was two witnesses alone from my memory that did not mention the JNA.

25 JUDGE MAY: Well, if you --

1 MR. KAY: And I have to say about those witnesses again from my

2 memory, they were very general cumulative witnesses.

3 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, on that particular issue, is there

6 anything you want to add to what's already been said?

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you know, Mr. May, yourself,

8 my basic objections, and I assume that you have managed to read through

9 the statements, although I don't know the time you have at your disposal

10 to do that. But I assume that you found yourself that all the things that

11 those witnesses say has nothing to do with the authorities of Serbia or

12 myself. So I don't really understand why we have to listen to the

13 witnesses about all the terrors of the war and all the terrible things

14 that happened during the war but had nothing to do with Serbia. But

15 that's up to you. That's the way you work. It's become standard practice

16 here.

17 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll move next to deal with the different

18 issue which is the Foca witnesses who gave evidence in other proceedings,

19 a total of 11, who were first of all cross-examined; secondly, of course,

20 gave evidence on oath in those proceedings.

21 So it may be that different principles apply. The Trial Chamber

22 again will have under the Rule to decide, first of all, whether to admit

23 the transcripts, and if they are admitted whether the witnesses should be

24 called for cross-examination, although they had been cross-examined in the

25 earlier proceedings. The issue, no doubt, will be as to whether there are

1 other issues, any other issues, on which they should be cross-examined.

2 We've read the written submissions on this subject, so there's no

3 need to repeat those.

4 Yes, Mr. Groome. Perhaps you could introduce the matter

5 generally. It may be of assistance.

6 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. The 11 witnesses whom the

7 Prosecution has referred to and similarly the Chamber as the Foca

8 witnesses are 11 witnesses who testified in the cases of Prosecutor versus

9 Kunarac and Prosecutor versus Krnojelac. In this case you have ruled on

10 92 bis already with respect to a similar submission regarding eight

11 witnesses from the Dokmanovic case. I will tailor my remarks regarding

12 these witnesses to address the criteria articulated as the basis of your

13 consideration and decision with respect to those Dokmanovic witnesses.

14 Namely, the proximity of the witness's testimony to the acts and conduct

15 of the accused and therefore its admissibility under 92 bis (D). And

16 secondly, whether or not these witnesses should be called for additional

17 cross-examination by this accused.

18 If I may begin with, Your Honour, the two witnesses B-1542 and

19 B-1543. They both testified in the Kunarac case and were known in that

20 case as FWS-75 and FWS-87 respectively.

21 B-1542, in addition to providing general evidence about the

22 takeover of Foca, describes her experience of being repeatedly raped and

23 abused over a period of three months, and she described her personal

24 knowledge of similar acts against other women and girls.

25 B-1543 tells of a similar account of her captivity and repeated

1 rape by several men over the course of two months.

2 With respect to the first inquiry regarding proximity, there can

3 be no reasonable view that the evidence of these two women is proximate in

4 any way to the direct acts of the accused. It was not the theory of the

5 Prosecution case that this accused was in any way directly responsible in

6 the actual commission of those crimes or had any direct authority over

7 those who physically perpetrated the crimes. It is our theory that

8 although very remote from these crimes, his participation in a joint

9 criminal enterprise as defined in the indictment facilitated and resulted

10 in foreseeable crimes like these to occur.

11 With respect to a consideration of whether these witness should be

12 required to appear before this Chamber for additional cross-examination by

13 the accused. Before I address this question with particular respect to

14 these two witnesses, I would like to make some general submissions

15 regarding this question.

16 The Prosecution fully recognises that the attendance and

17 cross-examination of witnesses is one of the most important rights

18 afforded an accused and also ensures the legitimacy and accuracy of any

19 decision ultimately reached by a Trial Chamber, that right clearly being

20 enshrined in Article 21. But directly following Article 21 is Article 22,

21 the importance of a Trial Chamber to consider the impacts of proceedings

22 on victims and witnesses that appear before it.

23 What was not specifically dealt with in your consideration of the

24 Dokmanovic witnesses, which I submit should be part of your consideration

25 of these Foca witnesses, is the impact of requiring these witnesses to

1 attend for additional cross-examination. It is the Prosecution's

2 submission that should the Chamber balance the need to protect these

3 witnesses against whether that protection unfairly impinges upon the

4 rights of the accused will be clear that in the case of these two

5 witnesses, they should not be required to appear for cross-examination.

6 B-1542, after providing her testimony on examination-in-chief was

7 fully cross-examined by three different Defence counsel regarding her

8 testimony. Over 150 pages of transcript were consumed in this exercise.

9 Similarly, B-1543 was cross-examined by four different Defence counsels

10 for a total of over 100 pages of transcript. The Chamber has recently

11 heard the testimony of B-1405 who suffered similar crimes and fresh in our

12 memory must be the difficulty and the pain which such testimony exacts

13 upon the victims who must give it.

14 It is our position that nonetheless, if renewed cross-examination

15 can reasonably be believed to assist the Chamber in its determination of a

16 significant issue in this case, the Prosecution agrees such witness should

17 be required to attend. Conversely, if no such reasonable belief exists,

18 it is the Prosecutor's position that the mandate of Article 22 requires

19 that witnesses not be brought to attend additional cross-examination. In

20 the case of these two witnesses and other witnesses, there is no

21 reasonable expectation that additional cross-examination will be of any

22 assistance to the Chamber.

23 If I might add parenthetically, as indicated also in our written

24 submission, B-1543 does not believe that she could endure additional

25 cross-examination, and it is not the Prosecutor's intention at this time

1 to request a subpoena or in any way attempt to compel her to appear. We

2 would withdraw her as a witness.

3 What the accused's position will be with respect to these two

4 women, I expect it will likely be as in the past that he will broadly

5 oppose these procedures that have been designed to facilitate efficient

6 proceedings while protecting his rights and interest. In the event that

7 he does not indicate how the previous cross-examination was inadequate or

8 what additional areas he would seek to question the witness regarding, the

9 Prosecution submits the following: We have now been in trial for over one

10 year. Clear patterns of cross-examination have emerged. Absent his

11 willingness to state with particularity what areas of questions he seeks

12 to put to these two witnesses, I submit the Chamber's analysis should

13 include those areas of examination he regularly and consistently engages

14 in.

15 JUDGE MAY: Let us consider the submission. You say that although

16 there is no specific reference in the Rule, nonetheless a Chamber, in

17 deciding whether a witness should be called for further cross-examination,

18 should take into account the likely effect upon a witness who has suffered

19 traumatic events as these witnesses have. Anyone who has read that

20 transcript will see.

21 On the other hand, you can see that it will be right for a Chamber

22 to consider cross-examination if there was some issue, some significant

23 issue which wasn't addressed in the earlier cross-examinations.

24 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MAY: Is that the point?

1 MR. GROOME: We do not place them on a par, the rights of the

2 victims on a par with the right of the accused to face his accuser, but

3 simply a matter to be considered. If there is no reasonable expectation

4 that further cross-examination will shed new light on a new issue or on an

5 issue not adequately covered that the Chamber would be entitled to not

6 require the witness to attend for additional cross-examination.

7 JUDGE MAY: It's the modern trend to take account of the impact on

8 witnesses of being made to appear in court and retell their events, is it

9 not?

10 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Especially in cases of sexual

11 assault and of such extended and prolonged sexual assault as in these two

12 cases.

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.

14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I was beginning to say I was going to

15 use as an example the Chamber I think is entitled to look back at the year

16 history of this trial and to evaluate the types of cross-examination that

17 the accused has engaged in when evaluating whether witnesses being brought

18 here and subjected to similar cross-examination, whether that will be of

19 assistance to the Chamber, and I would use as one example the accused

20 routinely explores inconsistencies between witnesses in-court testimony

21 and prior statements. The Chamber -- if the Chamber examines in the case

22 of both B-1542 and B-1543, that this was done with facility and adequately

23 in the previous trial by a number of different Defence attorneys. There

24 is no reasonable belief at present that the accused will be in a position

25 to more fully exploit the differences that exists between the prior

1 statement and the in-court testimony of those witnesses.

2 JUDGE MAY: Well, it may be said that that point can be made in

3 relation to all the -- virtually all the witnesses, that their previous

4 statements were put to them. Not just these two but other witnesses too,

5 I think I'm right in saying.

6 MR. GROOME: That will be our position, Your Honour, when I with

7 the other witnesses. It would be the same position.

8 JUDGE MAY: And one can get some idea of the extent of the

9 cross-examination, maybe not the detail, of course, because it's a very

10 rough-and-ready test by the pages which were taken up with

11 cross-examination. I notice in the case of the last witness you

12 mentioned, 1543, was cross-examined, I take it, for 102 pages as against

13 67 for direct or examination-in-chief.

14 MR. GROOME: If it is of assistance to the Chamber, we would be

15 willing to point with particularity the specific references in the

16 cross-examination that dealt with such things such as impeachment with

17 prior statements.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

19 MR. GROOME: I'm prepared to do that today. We would prepare a

20 chart overnight and submit it to the Chamber.

21 JUDGE MAY: We'll consider that.

22 MR. GROOME: Another avenue that the accused routinely explores

23 with witnesses is parts of their testimony which appear illogical or

24 improbable. A cursory examination of both of these cross-examinations

25 will indicate that this also was done at length and with some facility by

1 the different Defence attorneys that questioned these witnesses.

2 Finally, the accused routinely puts to witnesses information and

3 facts that he has in his possession that he believes furthers his position

4 in the hope that the witness may be in a position to confirm those facts.

5 It was the Prosecution's submission, as the Chamber regularly reminds the

6 accused, that this is a matter more properly dealt with on the Defence

7 case in due course, and it would be the Prosecution's position that a

8 witness should not be brought back for additional cross-examination in the

9 hope that that witness might be able to confirm a fact which the accused

10 wishes to put before the Chamber.

11 One final matter with respect that these witnesses, Your Honour is

12 that the Prosecution is not in possession of any additional Rule 68

13 material tending to impeach these witnesses that was not available to the

14 original cross-examiners.

15 The Prosecution submits that if the Chamber engages in this

16 analysis, it is clear that in the case of B-1542 and B-1543, that they

17 should not be required to attend cross-examination absent the accused or

18 the amici putting forth some articulable basis that additional

19 cross-examination could be reasonably believed to yield some new evidence

20 or be of some assistance in the Chamber's determination of a significant

21 issue in this trial. In the absence of that, it is the Prosecution's

22 contention that the testimony should be admitted without

23 cross-examination.

24 As a measure of additional caution, with respect to protecting the

25 rights of the accused, the Prosecution would not oppose a later

1 application by the amici or the accused later in the trial asking the

2 Court to reconsider this matter if it should appear towards a later point

3 in the trial that some important issue was raised by these witnesses and

4 it would appear at that stage that additional cross-examination could shed

5 light on that additional issue. The Prosecution would not oppose the

6 Chamber reopening its consideration of this matter.

7 I apologise with taking so long with these two witnesses. I will

8 deal with the remaining nine in a far more expeditious manner.

9 The next witnesses I would like to deal with are B-1015, B-1533,

10 B-1618, and B-1120.

11 Some of those witnesses were protected in the Foca trial, so I

12 would refer to all of them by their assigned witness pseudonyms.

13 In that case, they were respectively FSW-104, FSW-15, FSW-33,

14 FSW-111.

15 The subject of the testimony of all these witnesses concerns the

16 circumstances surrounding the takeover of Foca as well as the conditions

17 in the KP Dom. It is the Prosecution's position that none of their

18 testimony is sufficiently proximate to the acts and conduct of the accused

19 as to make it inadmissible under 92 bis (D). With respect to the question

20 of cross-examination, I submit the following: The Prosecution filed this

21 motion before any of the Chamber's recent 92 bis decisions. What has

22 emerged from the Chamber's rulings, as the law of this case, is that

23 witnesses that offer evidence regarding the JNA touch upon an important

24 issue raised by the accused and, therefore, should appear for

25 cross-examination.

1 The Prosecution concedes that if the Chamber is inclined to follow

2 this analysis, then these witnesses do speak to the participation of the

3 JNA or the use of its facilities and would be appropriately called for

4 limited purpose of cross-examination on that issue.

5 With respect to cross-examination on other issues, it is the

6 Prosecution's submission that such should not be allowed. All four

7 witnesses were subjected to extensive cross-examination on inconsistencies

8 between their in-court testimony and their prior statements. All were

9 cross-examined regarding those portions of their testimony the Defence

10 deemed improbable. B-1618 was cross-examined by each of the counsel of

11 the three accused.

12 With respect to B-1536, the Prosecution's position is similar.

13 The witness does talk about paramilitaries from Serbia taking part in the

14 attack on Foca including Seselj's men and Arkan's Tigers.

15 Again the Prosecution concedes that if the Chamber is to apply its

16 same analysis that it did with respect to its March decision on the JNA,

17 then the presentation of paramilitary forces from Serbia may raise

18 sufficiently similar issues that similarly limited cross-examination would

19 seem appropriate. It is the Prosecution's position that such renewed

20 cross-examination should be strictly limited to this issue. Again, this

21 witness was cross-examined by four different Defence counsel in two

22 trials.

23 The final group of witnesses I would ask to deal with are B-1121,

24 B-1537, B-1538, and B-1540. Respectively they were known in the Foca

25 trials as FSW-111, FSW-109 -- sorry, FWS-69, and FWS-54.

1 This last group of witnesses address in general terms the outbreak

2 of the conflict in Foca and describe with particularity the conditions of

3 the KP Dom detention facility. There is no reasonable view of their

4 evidence that such evidence is proximate to the conduct of the accused.

5 And is clearly within the ambit of the 92 bis (D).

6 With respect to the issue of cross-examination, all of these

7 witnesses were subjected to thorough and extensive cross-examination.

8 Attempts were made to impeach some of them through questions regarding

9 their participation in the SDA political party. One witness was

10 questioned about a previous psychiatric illness that affected that

11 witness's memory, and other important matters for a trier of fact to be

12 aware of in evaluating their testimony. It is the Prosecution's

13 submission that none of these witnesses directly implicate an important

14 issue raised by the accused in this trial and as such should not be

15 required to attend for additional cross-examination by the accused.

16 I would note parenthetically that in the case of B-1537, the

17 Prosecution has been unable to locate this witness in recent months, and

18 the Prosecution would at this stage seek leave to amend our application

19 for admission of his testimony to be considered under 92 bis (C) instead

20 of (D). Of course, we will continue to look for him and advise the

21 Chamber and the parties of any change in circumstance.

22 JUDGE MAY: If you're going to put an application under 92 bis (C)

23 you'll have to put some evidence, or at least a statement or something of

24 that sort in front of us so we have something to consider.

25 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE MAY: If you want to do that, of course do it.

2 MR. GROOME: Yes. I will prepare a submission regarding the

3 efforts made to contact this witness.

4 In conclusion, Your Honour, it is the Prosecution's position that

5 the considerations of Rule 22 are entirely appropriate for consideration

6 when the Chamber considers Rule 92 bis issue of cross-examination.

7 Attendance and questioning in this court impacts all witnesses over a

8 spectrum of mere convenience to hardship to actual trauma in some cases.

9 We submit that the Chamber duly considers this factor, there will be and

10 are in this case those occasions in which there is no reasonable

11 expectation that additional cross-examination will yield new significant

12 information and that no significant impingement of the rights of the

13 accused can said to have been occurred by not requiring such witnesses to

14 attend for a second cross-examination by the accused.

15 To summarise our position in the case of B-1542, B-1543, B-1121,

16 B-1537, 1538, and 1540, it is our request that their testimony be admitted

17 into this trial without the opportunity for the accused to ask them

18 further questions and that doing so is not a violation of his right to

19 cross-examine or the general right to a fair trial.

20 We further acknowledge that if the Chamber is to employ a similar

21 analysis to its ruling of the 27th of March, 2003, that that would require

22 B-1015, 1120, 1533, 1618, and 1536 to attend for limited

23 cross-examination. The Prosecution, however, submits that such

24 cross-examination should be strictly limited to the issue raised by the

25 accused, namely the presence --

1 JUDGE MAY: You referred earlier to Rule 22.

2 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry.

3 JUDGE MAY: It's confusing. No doubt you meant Article 22.

4 MR. GROOME: My apologies. Your Honour. Article 22 of the

5 Statute.

6 JUDGE MAY: Concerned with the rights of the victims, of course.

7 MR. GROOME: Yes. The due consideration of the rights and the

8 cost to the victims of participating in trials before this Tribunal.

9 So with respect to those witnesses, although the Prosecution

10 acknowledges that it may be appropriate to call them for a limited issue,

11 it is the Prosecution's position that the cross-examination should be

12 strictly limited and would request that any decision with respect to those

13 witnesses by this Chamber include the limitations of the cross-examination

14 to those issues.

15 JUDGE MAY: Just one moment.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Groome, you offered to produce a table overnight

18 of cross-examination matters such as inconsistencies. We think that will

19 be helpful if would you do that.

20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the two that I propose would be the use

21 of prior inconsistent statements and questions about the improbability of

22 the testimony. Are there any other areas that the Chamber would be of

23 assistance to identify and locate?

24 JUDGE MAY: No. I think those are the main areas. Thank you.

25 Mr. Kay.

1 MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honours. The accused has asserted on many

2 occasions during the course of his trial his desire to question witnesses

3 at every opportunity. This is a matter that we are dealing with now that

4 lies within the discretion of the Trial Chamber, and I ask the Court to

5 bear in mind the way that the accused has presented his case and the

6 statements that he has made as to his need to have publicly heard the

7 evidence against him, and we submit that that is an important

8 consideration within any trial when you are dealing with the concept of

9 fairness to an accused.

10 As has already been said, the accused has a right to a fair and

11 public trial under Article 21, subarticle 2 of the Statute of this

12 Tribunal.

13 In the context of his trial, these 11 witnesses would not have

14 been heard in public. Under that same Article 21, the accused has a right

15 to be tried in his presence and defend himself in person.

16 Cross-examination and the questioning in direct examination of those

17 witnesses would not have been in his presence. He would not have been

18 able to observe the demeanour, other personal characteristics of those

19 witnesses, and for him, the relevance of that testimony cannot be

20 assessed, for him, adequately as having been within previous proceedings

21 for other defendants, facing other charges and in a completely different

22 context to his trial.

23 Under that same Article 21, the accused has a right to examine or

24 have examined those witnesses on his behalf that come forward to give

25 testimony against him.

1 Those are the principles that we derive from the Statute that seek

2 to provide a fair trial for an accused. Having stated those principles,

3 it is important now to stress the reasons. The reasons why we have this

4 public hearing, that we give an opportunity to the accused to present his

5 case and to question witnesses and to hear personally himself what is said

6 in the context of his trial against him, the reason why that which has

7 been said in other trials would be inadequate for him is because previous

8 questions would not have been in the context of his case. Previous

9 questioners in cross-examination would not have been questioning on

10 instructions from him, and the importance of cross-examination by other

11 questioners always depends upon the context of that particular individual

12 who at that time is in court and on trial. It may serve the interests in

13 other cases of those cross-examining not to pursue interests or lines of

14 questioning that would be of relevance to this accused, i.e., it is a

15 self-serving process entirely. And those questioning in the previous

16 proceedings would have been serving the interests solely of those accused

17 on trial and not the interests of Mr. Milosevic. They are not mutual

18 interests.

19 JUDGE MAY: You seem to be saying that there are no circumstances

20 under which this particular Rule could ever be applied. And therefore,

21 really what you're saying is that we should ignore it because these

22 general observations could apply to any trial.

23 MR. KAY: They are rules of -- a rule of discretion that we submit

24 should be used sparingly. They should not be used wholesale because they

25 may diminish the public nature of a trial. They may diminish in that way

1 to highlight the interests of a particular accused, and by that I mean

2 this accused. And it is worthy of note that the Rule itself was not a

3 founding rule of this Tribunal. It is something that came in later. At

4 the time of the creation of this Tribunal it was not envisaged, I would

5 submit, that this would be the way that proceedings would be conducted.

6 JUDGE MAY: It wasn't envisaged no doubt that the trials would

7 take as long and there would be as much evidence, but that may be a

8 totally different point. I mean, the fact that the founders didn't

9 foresee these problems I don't think is a strong point, I may say.

10 MR. KAY: Why I mentioned it is that the founders were probably

11 working very closely with the principles in mind from the Statute. And

12 it's easy to envisage situations where the principles of the statute that

13 gives birth to the Tribunal in the first place may become obscured for

14 reasons of expediency and thereby deprive an accused of that important

15 right which underwrites the whole process of the fair trial.

16 JUDGE MAY: You see, that depends on a view that all the trial

17 should be oral, and no doubt that was partly in the minds of the founders

18 who gave a primacy to oral evidence, and that's what's been changed. All

19 evidence now is treated equally. Now, I accept, of course, that this is a

20 particular point dealing with evidence in other cases, but one has to take

21 into account the size of the cases and the amount of evidence which is

22 nowadays put before the Tribunal, and what is required is to find an

23 expeditious but fair way of admitting it, and that's why evidence in

24 written form is now more freely admitted.

25 MR. KAY: In a way, judging by the number of pages as to whether a

1 job has been done or not, I would submit to the Tribunal, can be a very

2 inaccurate way of assessing whether evidence has been properly challenged.

3 Page numbers are no guide. It's quality rather than quantity which may be

4 a far more important way of determining how well a job has been done.

5 We do make this point, that Witness B-1015, at the start of

6 cross-examination by Defence counsel refused to cooperate, not answer

7 questions, and was antagonistic. This led, perhaps, but it's a fact on

8 the record, to the Defence counsel putting obviously inaccurate facts in

9 cross-examination and being criticised by a Trial Judge for it. And this

10 highlights the problem in using testimony from other trials where the

11 interests of the parties are not mutual, that the people performing their

12 functions within the trial process are different, that case strategies may

13 be entirely different. Each trial strategy for each accused has to be

14 considered as an entirely self-serving process. And I don't mean that in

15 a derogatory fashion, but it is a fact in the way that they have to

16 contest the proceedings.

17 I take the observation by the Trial Chamber that the points I am

18 raising are critical of this particular Rule, but we stress here that this

19 is a rule that should be used sparingly and not in a wholesale

20 application. At the end --

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: It seems to me, Mr. Kay, that what you are saying

22 is that this is a rule which if not applied very, very carefully can be

23 ultra vires of the statute in terms of the right to a public hearing and

24 the right of the accused to examine evidence that has been given against

25 him.

1 MR. KAY: Exactly, so, Your Honour. Our submission is that this

2 has forced the principles in a direction too far as far as those

3 principles were the embodiment and the embedding of this Tribunal.

4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Kay, let's be specific. Could you make further

5 observation as to those two witnesses, rape victims, 1542 and 1543? What

6 will be your position?

7 MR. KAY: My position is very clear. In relation to any crimes,

8 they should be treated with due equality. And if you start constructing a

9 process that permits certain types of crime to be more easily proved

10 against an accused than another type of crime, again you are moving away

11 from the founding principles of the Tribunal, which -- which addresses

12 victims generally and in full equality without distinguishing between one

13 class and another.

14 As yet, there has been no medical evidence of any harm that the

15 Judges should consider to determine an appropriateness in revising the

16 usual procedures for the giving of evidence.

17 JUDGE MAY: Are you saying that this is not a matter we should

18 take into account? And secondly, are you really saying that we need

19 medical evidence to consider the possible traumatic effect of a rape

20 victim having to come back and give evidence of a series of rapes? Surely

21 no court needs evidence of that sort.

22 And the final point is this: It's not a question of a separate

23 category here. It's merely a question of whether a witness having given

24 what must have been traumatic evidence, or must have been traumatic for

25 them, should be forced to come back to be further cross-examined. And

1 whatever you say about the equality of cross-examination, certainly the

2 quantity is relevant when considering the length of time they must have

3 already spent in the witness stand.

4 Are you saying we should not take these matters into account when

5 we consider whether we should order cross-examination?

6 MR. KAY: I am sympathetic to any victim who suffered any crime,

7 and that includes those victims of sexual crimes. And it is easy to

8 comprehend the trauma that such victims may later experience in a

9 courtroom. But the issue we have here is that an accused is on trial

10 whose liberty is at stake, and for him the manner and delivery of evidence

11 may be important.

12 It has to be noted certainly in those parts of the trial to date

13 where we have heard such evidence that the accused has been sympathetic

14 and has stated no desire or wish to compound unpleasantness on the

15 witness. So I don't want this issue to be seen as whether it's the amicus

16 curiae, Mr. Kay in particular, forcing this issue onto those victims of

17 rape. It's not the point that I am trying to deal with. I am still

18 wrestling with the underlying problem of testimony that has been given

19 elsewhere in different circumstances against a different accused who has

20 different interests, a different lawyer and a different context for his

21 trial. So there is no desire from this part to use this as an exercise of

22 unpleasantness or harm to a victim, and we consider those Articles within

23 the Statute as being very important which consider the rights of the

24 victims.

25 But the issue here does remain the public nature of the trial

1 which this accused has put forward as being a very important issue in

2 relation to not only his trial but those watching it who may be potential

3 witnesses of whom he has frequently made the point he has no fear or no

4 need to disguise the case against him in any way.

5 One can consider it in a different way against a different accused

6 who is not so prominent, does not feature so highly in the scheme of

7 things, and issues such as this, if he wasn't mentioned in relation to the

8 evidence, carry no importance.

9 Having appeared in another trial myself, I can readily say that,

10 that you let things go by because it makes no difference to your

11 indictment -- your client at that time, and the issues you are following

12 are for a particular accused, to meet the particular case against him.

13 But in relation to this accused and his pronouncements and

14 strategy, one can readily see that his perception of the trial and what he

15 requires to do is very different for his own interests.

16 If I could just turn now to the exhibits, the witness statements.

17 It seems in that trial, for no good reason that I could see of reading the

18 transcripts, that the witness statements went in as a matter of course in

19 direct examination upon the witness being produced by the Prosecutor.

20 JUDGE MAY: Which trial was that?

21 MR. KAY: The Foca trial. I have terrible difficulty -- Kunarac

22 and Krnojelac. I apologise to him for my poor pronunciation. I haven't

23 got to that part of the course.

24 JUDGE MAY: You're saying both of them. In both of them the

25 statements went in.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. KAY: Yes. It was a matter of routine. And in that way

2 exhibited material goes onto the record, burnt onto the record, should I

3 say, if it's to be reused, with many aspects within those statements which

4 are not challenged or dealt with in direct or cross-examination.

5 That's a very different state of affairs from the position where a

6 witness produces a map, a photograph, a plan as part of his testimony and

7 one could see why exhibited such material makes sense to the transcript as

8 a whole. But if witness statements go in like that, we can see a

9 back-door route for the admission of statement evidence without any proper

10 hearing upon the contents. And as we know, there are many inaccuracies.

11 How they come about is not for me to say. It's just the fact that there

12 are inaccuracies that need to be mentioned because they affect the

13 reliability. And if the reliability of evidence is affected, the quality

14 of the trial diminishes.

15 So the second strand of our submission is that there be

16 cross-examination by the accused in any event. If the Trial Chamber does

17 not accede to our argument on the matter but permits the transcript

18 testimony in on behalf of the Prosecutor, our fall-back position on his

19 behalf or what we would say is an argument open, a second strand, is that

20 there be cross-examination. I don't know if I can assist any further.

21 JUDGE MAY: No. Thank you, Mr. Kay. Although, just one final

22 point. I suppose we will have to look, if we were minded to admit any of

23 the transcripts, we would have to look at the witness statements to see

24 whether they were admitted in or not. It would be open to us to exclude

25 the witness statements.

1 MR. KAY: Yes. It becomes a tricky exercise in my submission,

2 going down that route. It's just when the witness stands up, his

3 statement, "any objections," the Presiding Judge says, the Defence say no

4 and it just goes in like that almost like a tool of the process rather

5 than an evidence in the process, if I can make that distinction if that

6 makes sense.

7 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, on this particular point of

8 these transcripts.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, precisely on that particular

10 point and separate issue, Mr. May. Just like in all the other aspects,

11 things here are being put topsy-turvy, upside down. The question is not

12 whether the cross-examination has been conducted or not, it's a reversal

13 of thesis. The question is how it was conducted and done and what one

14 wishes to prove in each individual case.

15 Mention is made here of a proposal according to which the facts

16 should be accepted, facts which have been adjudicated in front of this

17 illegal court of yours, and neither you, although you are an illegal

18 Tribunal, did not adjudicate facts but persons, people. You judged upon

19 people. So it was not facts that were adjudicated and that the proposal

20 is they be brought to your knowledge formally, but what we're dealing with

21 are facts that refer to whether or not something took place, where, under

22 what conditions and circumstances and whether a person perpetrated a crime

23 or act of any kind. That was the subject of your deliberations.

24 In the cases which you now wish to put into one box, into one

25 trial, which in itself is cumulative, if I can put it that way, and which

1 represents a completely novel practice in general in trials of any kind,

2 or adjudication or judgement of any kind, which is not surprising as this

3 is an illegal Tribunal.

4 So from your aspects, precisely from your own aspects, as you

5 consider yourself to be a court, you have adjudicated, judged persons and

6 not facts. And you have judged them on the basis of facts which in those

7 proceedings, the legal proceedings conducted against those persons were

8 considered to be adjudicated, which means that adjudicated facts can only

9 be those which refer to whether a certain person did commit a crime of

10 some kind, where, when, against whom, under what circumstances and

11 conditions. Any other facts cannot be considered to have been

12 adjudicated.

13 Mr. Kay, you mentioned a moment ago economics of time, expediency,

14 and that principle does indeed exist. I do not challenge that. I do not

15 challenge its existence. But I assume that you're not going to allow

16 yourself to challenge the fact that when we're talking about legal courts

17 and legal trials, this must not be at the detriment of justice. You

18 usually tend to look at the clock and you're interested in the time, the

19 passage of time mostly. A legal court of law must be interested in

20 justice, that -- justice being done as opposed to principle of expediency

21 and economy in itself.

22 So take a look now at what you have here before you, and putting

23 it mildly, they are dubious facts, and dubious facts can be considered to

24 be adjudicated, which curtails the right for me myself to be able to state

25 my views on those facts or by applying them, by applying the means and

1 resources that I have at my disposal, although you're trying to tie my

2 hands at such as possible in that respect, I wish to put into question and

3 to prove and show before the public that they have not been properly

4 ascertained and adjudicated that, they are the result of insufficient

5 knowledge in certain subject matters and areas, that they have been

6 construed, for example, and even, I would as far as to say, that their

7 assertion emerged from a compromise of the accused and their Defences with

8 the opposite side over there, bargaining with that side over there that

9 calls itself the Prosecution. And that is why that opposite side and this

10 practice seems to be a sort of malignant body and acts in that way in a

11 legal system which is being created and legal thought that is being

12 created, because the eyes of the public see how many compromises are being

13 struck here and bargains that are being struck with different people who

14 are accused here, who are told to own up to certain crimes for them to

15 receive shorter prison terms.

16 JUDGE MAY: We are well away from the point on which you must

17 address us. The issue is not that of the adjudicated facts, and your

18 hands are not tied, as you know, as far as the evidence is concerned.

19 Providing it's relevant, you can call relevant evidence.

20 But the matter that we are having to consider now and on which we

21 have invited you to address us is the issue of the transcripts which were

22 admitted in the two cases which have been mentioned, and the issue that

23 we're having to determine, there are 11 of them, is whether we should

24 admit them in these -- in this particular case with or without

25 cross-examination. Now, that's the issue which you've got to address.

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's the issue I'm talking

2 about, and I believe that I'm taking up less time than the opposite side

3 and the amicus. I don't suppose you're going to challenge, Mr. May, are

4 you, and gentlemen generally, one and all, that there is a complete

5 difference of interests of persons who were judged here and the transcript

6 of which you wish to introduce because it was not in their interests to

7 deal in any depth with certain issues. And as we are talking here about a

8 general -- the general culprit as Serbia is a general culprit and all the

9 territories of Yugoslavia, this seems to be quite a different principle

10 and approach here in order to establish the truth wherein culpability is

11 concerned. What I'm doing, I'm doing for one goal, to establish the truth

12 and the place and of role of my own people in the historical events which

13 came to pass and which you are trying to represent in the way you are here

14 to determine culpability. So it is quite logical to me that in the

15 individual cases people had no interest in delving into any kind of

16 historical and various other circumstances.

17 And I wish to repeat once again. I have already said that the

18 indictment is false and that I will break down all its allegations, and I

19 will be able to do that if you do not curtail my right and time to be able

20 to put that into effect.

21 Now, whether something is essential or not essential, you must

22 allow me to assess that. And everything is essential. Everything is of

23 substance, because everything that took place on the territory of the

24 former Yugoslavia you link to Serbia, its institutions, and to myself

25 personally. So you cannot say that you can exclude something because it

1 is not relevant. Everything is relevant because everything is linked

2 together. And you link it together, even the rapes. Any drunken fool can

3 carry out rapes in London or your own Jamaica, Mr. Robinson, or anywhere

4 else. And I'm sure you're not going to bring the head of state to court

5 because a criminal perpetrated a crime or raped somebody. However,

6 everything is in play here, everything comes into play, and you have

7 presented all kinds of accusations here for things that neither Serbia nor

8 I have anything to do with and for which it is the people who committed

9 the crime against Yugoslavia are to be held accountable and responsible.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let me understand it. In relation

11 to the rapes, you might not so much want to question the fact of the rape

12 as you might wish to question who committed it. Do I understand you

13 correctly? You might not wish to question the fact of the rape, that

14 there was a rape, that these women were raped, but you might want to

15 address the issue as to who committed the rapes?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I might even question the

17 facts. If my information tells me that a witness statement and testimony

18 is false, Mr. Robinson. Because here there have been a large number of

19 false witnesses. You saw here somebody who said he was a close associate

20 of mine. That's what he claimed, and I've never set eyes on him in his

21 life before.

22 So, Mr. Robinson, you ever introduced into evidence as an exhibit

23 a photograph of a shirt with three holes in it, which Miljazin Tachi, a

24 witness brought in here who said he was shot with a heavy machine-gun from

25 a distance of three metres and that he wasn't wounded because God saved

1 him, God just didn't save his shirt. So you accept quite unbelievable

2 things here in this court.

3 I have received here quite a lengthy document here which says it

4 is a proposal on the part of the Prosecution for note to be taken of

5 adjudicated facts. This is quite nonsensical, because facts were not

6 adjudicated or judged. It was individuals that were judged in a

7 completely different context.

8 And secondly, when it comes to these facts, there are such

9 idiocies here in the historical sense, the factual sense, and any other

10 sense which quite simply you won't need any effort to challenge, one

11 wouldn't need any effort to challenge. They deal with everything, all

12 things together. Several centuries ago the Serbs inhabited the northern

13 and southern areas of Bosnia. That's what the other side claims there.

14 They delve in history. They reshape and recut history. And it delves

15 into all other different things.

16 It says: "Immediately after the First World War and the

17 disintegration of the Habsburg Empire," this is what it says, "a kingdom

18 was created of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes through the unification of

19 the Kingdom of Serbia with Montenegro, with Croatia, Slovenia and

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina." That's what it says here.

21 Well, neither Croatia nor Bosnia-Herzegovina existed because

22 they're part of the Habsburg Empire. So what kind of unity or unification

23 are we talking about here? These are historical, nonsensical things.

24 They've written nonsense here, a whole book of it. A whole book of facts

25 we have here. And there's another thing they say here --

1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, as the Presiding Judge indicated, we

2 are already through with the issue of adjudicated facts. Please confine

3 yourself to the issue of the transcripts.

4 And in answer to my colleague Judge Robinson's question, you said

5 that you may challenge the fact that -- whether there was a rape or not.

6 May I take it that you are challenging these two witnesses, 1542 and 1543,

7 were raped or not? Could you make your specific observations as to those

8 two witnesses?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, I really do rate very

10 highly your well-intentioned efforts, but I can give an answer to that

11 question only when I have all the facts which are related to their

12 testimony which has not been available to me so far, because within the

13 framework of my time constraints I have to deal with current witnesses,

14 the order of which as you yourself know undergoes change on an almost

15 daily basis, so that this type of practice also makes it more difficult

16 for me or anybody to become better acquainted with this.

17 I do not wish to insult anyone here, Mr. Kwon, but I myself do not

18 believe that anyone, you or Mr. May or Mr. Robinson have managed to read

19 through the 400.000 pages which have been disclosed so far because I just

20 do not see the time that you have to do so in addition to your sitting

21 here and all your other obligations that you have to attend to and, of

22 course, the breaks that you are entitled to. So I don't think that any

23 human being would be able to read through that number of pages but that is

24 why you do consider that you're able to assess what it says there without

25 being fully informed about what it says in all those pages.

1 Take a look at what they say here: With the constitution of 1974,

2 the Muslim population of Bosnia-Herzegovina --

3 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we cannot allow time to go like this.

4 The matter we are discussing here and we are inviting your submissions is

5 about these Foca transcripts. We're not going over the history all over

6 again.

7 Now, is there anything you want to say? We will consider, of

8 course, whether to admit these transcripts and whether to allow

9 cross-examination. Is there anything more you want to say on that issue,

10 on that issue?

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am absolutely opposed to the fact

12 that any kind of transcripts are introduced into evidence here because it

13 is completely incompatible with the contents of what that false indictment

14 is accusing me of having committed. And they would now like to link it

15 all up into different parcels and packages, different judgements brought

16 under conditions which were suspect, under pressure exerted on people,

17 under conditions of compromise with the accused, bargain pleas and all the

18 rest of it. And they want to put it into one parcel, to tie it up and

19 then to have that represent a crime base or a basis of documents which are

20 all suspect. So I categorically reject any possibility of that being done

21 and I hope that I have expounded that sufficiently clearly and you can

22 decide whichever way you like, because I wouldn't be surprised of any of

23 your decisions. They would not surprise me either way, whichever way it

24 goes.

25 MR. KAY: May I make just one correction. It was in relation to

1 the exhibited witness statements. I must have been suffering from

2 transcript fatigue. I was thinking of the Dokmanovic trial where they

3 went in as a matter of course, and I've been able to check it and it was

4 the wrong Tribunal, of course.

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.

6 MR. KAY: Sorry.

7 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Groome.

8 MR. GROOME: If I may just briefly, Your Honour. I think there

9 were some witness statements accepted in this case. The Prosecution would

10 not oppose just a simple rejection. It has been the practice -- simple

11 rejection of that has not been the practice of this Trial Chamber. We

12 certainly would not oppose that.

13 I think that raises --

14 JUDGE MAY: When you do your table about cross-examination,

15 perhaps you could indicate your view about the witness statements in each

16 case.

17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE MAY: If there had been any which have gone in, well then I

19 think they should be excluded unless they're in for a particular reason

20 which they may be to deal with inconsistencies and that sort of thing.

21 MR. GROOME: Of course, Your Honour. A similar issue has been

22 raised here with respect to B-1015 and just the general nature of 92 bis.

23 The Prosecution is equally bound by the transcript. There is no

24 requirement in 92 bis that the Chamber accept the evidence. It's simply

25 that the evidence be presented. It's simply about presentation of

1 evidence, that the evidence be presented by transcript as opposed to live

2 testimony. The Chamber would be certainly entitled after reviewing the

3 transcript of the 1015 to combined the witness incredible. The Chamber

4 would be entitled to review any of the exhibits tendered and say they are

5 unreliable. Similarly with the rape. The witness would be able to read

6 the testimony of that rape victim and decide that the Chamber does not

7 find it credible and give it no weight.

8 Mr. Milosevic, if he has evidence that the witness perjured

9 themselves, the Prosecution would not oppose the witness being recalled to

10 face that evidence, to answer to that evidence.

11 So underlying 92 bis is simply the principle of presentation of

12 evidence and if the amici or the accused can articulate some area of

13 questioning that they wish to put to this witness that seems plausible and

14 reasonable to the Chamber, chances are the Prosecution would not oppose

15 that witness being recalled and the Chamber certainly would be entitled to

16 have that witness called. But I think 92 bis imposes some -- puts it to

17 the accused and puts it to the amici to say why should the Chamber not

18 accept the presentation of evidence in the form of transcript testimony?

19 Why must the witness be recalled to give oral testimony once again?

20 JUDGE MAY: We will consider this and give your ruling in due

21 course. We will await the submission of the Prosecution document

22 tomorrow.

23 Mr. Nice, it's time for the adjournment unless there's something

24 you want to deal with briefly.

25 MR. NICE: I'm in Your Honour's hands. Has the Court yet received

1 the summary of the next witness?

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we have it.

3 MR. NICE: Should I mention all administrative matters after the

4 adjournment? I'll probably be about three or four minutes on

5 administrative matters and a couple minutes on the next witness. It will

6 be five minutes in all.

7 JUDGE MAY: Shall we deal with it now? If it's five minutes.

8 MR. NICE: The first thing I wanted to say had to deal with the

9 witness list served last week. I hope it's self-explanatory, but I know

10 that the accused --

11 JUDGE MAY: That hasn't found its way to us yet.

12 MR. NICE: I'm sorry about that. The motion did but not the

13 witness list. The Chamber will recall that we were expelled from the

14 building for technical reasons at 3.00 on the Friday, so it couldn't get

15 on the -- on the Thursday, so it couldn't get in on the Thursday.

16 I'll make my observations about the list when you've got it. It's

17 silly to do it otherwise, and then the accused can perhaps follow the

18 shape of the list which is designed to be helpful.

19 One other technical point, procedural matter the witness

20 Patrick Ball who was the expert called in the Kosovo part of the trial is

21 being called back this week because of a corrigendum he wished to make to

22 his report. He's not under an interdiction that he shouldn't talk to the

23 Prosecution; nevertheless, I shall make it plain that my present intention

24 is he may be spoken to by us briefly, or probably not at very great length

25 so we can understand what it is that he's wishing to lay before the

1 Chamber then either to, with the Chamber's leave, lead the evidence or

2 alternatively just simply get him -- either lead the evidence or get him

3 to explain the evidence himself.

4 In relation to the forthcoming witness, it may help you if you

5 have before you not only his statement or rather his summary but the

6 exhibits for this reason: The witness who has the benefit of protection

7 kept a diary. When he met the investigator, he provided the investigator

8 with notes that were extracted from his diary. The diary is no longer

9 available to him, but the notes extracted from the diary are, and indeed

10 all of them, bar one page, have already been provided to the accused.

11 The witness is in a position to speak about three meetings. The

12 diary entries dealt with those meetings and the notes provided to the

13 investigator are, broadly speaking, transcripts of those original diary

14 entries. The notes provided have been marked in the margins in either red

15 or blue. The red passages are passages which are by and large simply

16 taken straight from the original diary entries which were themselves

17 broadly contemporaneous. The blue notes are a different kind that the

18 witness wrote in preparation for his encounter with the investigator.

19 My proposal is that when we come to the evidence about the

20 meetings in particular - there are three of them - the best course would

21 be for the witness to simply go through his notes which are side-lined in

22 red, and then to be asked one or two supplementary questions. This will

23 save time but also be the most accurate reflection of the evidence which

24 this witness is able to give. But I thought it helpful to give you

25 advance warning of that being the course I was proposing.

1 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. So we can have the witness immediately

2 after the break.

3 MR. NICE: Certainly. Oh, one other thing. One paragraph only

4 does he seek to give - or two paragraphs - in closed session. It's on the

5 second page -- or in private session, and I would ask for leave to call

6 him on that basis.

7 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.

8 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

9 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

10 [The witness entered court]

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration. If you

12 would stand to do that, please.

13 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

14 JUDGE MAY: We didn't get an interpretation of that.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English on this channel?

16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Would you read it again, please.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

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

19 JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.

20 WITNESS: WITNESS C-048

21 [Witness answered through interpreter]

22 MR. NICE: Your Honour, before I start the evidence, the Chamber

23 will note that the front page of the summary has a schedule of exhibits.

24 There will be some corrections as to what was to be dealt with in public

25 and what under seal. So it's only an indication.

1 The Chamber will also see on the second and third page an idea

2 hopefully enacted coming from this pact that you should have a dramatis

3 personae of the people mentioned by the witness to which you may readily

4 refer. I think one error has crept in on what is page 2. In the last

5 entry of the box that says, "figures in the MUP and the state security

6 service," the last entry there, the second sentence, "part of

7 Backa Palanka lobby" should be deleted.

8 JUDGE MAY: And just to make it plain, the pseudonym, there seem

9 to be a number of pseudonyms given to this witness.

10 MR. NICE: For these purposes this witness is going to be known as

11 C-048.

12 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

13 MR. NICE: Your Honour, may we deal with the background of the

14 witness and by one paragraph that you can find in -- starting at the foot

15 of page four but in the reality at the top of page 5, may we deal with

16 that immediately in private session? It'll take little more than a few

17 minutes, couple of minutes.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

19 MR. NICE: May the witnesses's exhibits be given --

20 [Private session]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 19626 - redacted - private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 19627 - redacted - private session

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

18 MR. NICE:

19 Q. Witness C-048, how was it that you first came into contact with

20 the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal?

21 A. In early May 2002, I made contact at my own initiative, believing

22 that I was familiar with certain circumstances and events which may be of

23 assistance in this proceeding.

24 Q. Did you seek any benefit or gain from the Office of the

25 Prosecutor?

1 A. I never asked for any kind of gain nor ever considered receiving

2 it from the Prosecution or from this testimony because I'm convinced that

3 it is the duty of any honest man to testify at court against crime.

4 Q. Witness C-048, did you in May of 1992 get a job at a business in

5 Belgrade called the MP Royal, which was a casino, restaurant and

6 cafeteria, based in the Hotel Putnik -- I beg your pardon. In Novi Sad,

7 not in Belgrade.

8 A. Yes. But I would like to make a correction here. The company was

9 in Belgrade -- no, no, in Novi Sad. Belgrade was mentioned but the

10 company was in Novi Sad.

11 Q. Was this hotel opposite the Regional Board of the SPS party?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Who owned this business?

14 A. Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic.

15 Q. Is Vesko his nickname?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Did Vesko Vukotic in due course tell you of what he had done in

18 the 1980s in relation to Albanian immigrants in Europe?

19 A. Yes. Mr. Vukotic told me about the liquidations of Albanian

20 immigrants throughout Europe, that he did that on the instructions of the

21 Yugoslav secret service. He particularly mentioned the latest, the most

22 recent, the last recent that he committed, that was the assassination of

23 an Albanian immigrant and human rights activist, Mr. Hadriu who lived in

24 Brussels.

25 He also mentioned to me on several occasions that that was the

1 first assassination, political assassination, that the State Security

2 Service of Serbia committed on its own, without any consultation with the

3 federal service which still existed at that time and that practically

4 constituted the beginning of the break-up of unified security system of

5 Yugoslavia.

6 Before he told me that, he told me he did that with the help of

7 Andrija Lakonic and with the logistics support of Darko Asanin.

8 Q. Staying with the liquidations in the 1980s, did Vukotic tell you

9 what the general policy was as to which Albanians should be liquidated and

10 why?

11 A. Vukotic mentioned that in the 1980s, the general policy of the

12 federal service was the liquidation of Albanian intellectuals because,

13 without any intention of insulting the Albanian people, because the

14 educational structure in general was quite low and the loss of any

15 intellectual for them resulted in major harm. And as Mr. Vukotic was very

16 picturesque in the way he expressed himself, there was a lot of time

17 necessary for new intellectuals to grow up. And when he said weeds

18 amongst them, he meant the Albanian intellectuals.

19 Mr. Vukotic also said that in the 1990s, especially the mid-1990s,

20 he criticised the policy conducted by the accused here and his police,

21 which was based on mass repression of the Albanian population in Kosovo.

22 Mr. Vukotic believed that the methods that were used before were

23 much more effective because they did not result in animosity and the rage

24 of the international community.

25 Q. Can I move on to a matter of detail? The murder of Enver Hadri,

1 which was the first one traceable to the Serb DB and not to the federal

2 organs, just to be clear, did Vukotic say precisely who had committed the

3 murder?

4 A. He told me very clearly that he committed it.

5 Q. Was there an investigation in Belgium into this killing? Were any

6 arrests made? How did such an inquiry end?

7 A. I know that the Belgian police conducted an investigation and that

8 he was wanted by the Belgian police. Mr. Vukotic, until the 16th of

9 November, 1997, did not travel abroad for the above-mentioned reasons.

10 And then he left because he had to, because he had committed another

11 murder in Montenegro in a place called Prcanj.

12 I also know that in September 1995, in Greece, Darko Asanin was

13 arrested on suspicion of involvement in the liquidation, but the entire

14 Serbian and Yugoslav leadership at the time, both political and police

15 leadership, got to its feet in order to get Darko Asanin out of prison.

16 Marijan, the wife of Darko Asanin at the time, went to give a

17 false statement that Darko was with her at the given time so that Darko

18 could leave prison and then --

19 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Thank you. And then as to the

20 man Lakonic, I know this is in italics in paragraph 7, but in a sentence,

21 what happened to him?

22 A. Lakonic was liquidated in late March 1990 in a club, discotheque

23 called Nana in Belgrade because he had become dependent on heroin, and he

24 had begun to boast publicly about all that he had done for the service.

25 Vesko Vukotic was given the task to do this. They did that in a way which

1 caused a little bit more attention from the public, but Vesko Vukotic

2 managed to --

3 Q. Now, that -- that that you've told us of general background coming

4 from Vukotic's mouth and other material you learnt connected to it in the

5 course of your time with him. I now want to look chronologically at the

6 first few months at any event in your time in the Royal casino.

7 When you first went there, what was your job?

8 A. My first job was to control all the cashiers in the cafeteria and

9 in the restaurant, and particularly in the casino because the owner

10 Vesko Vukotic thought that the staff was stealing from him.

11 Q. What success did you have in your supervision of the staff? What

12 promotion did it bring and why?

13 A. Yes. The turnover increased suddenly, almost 50, 60 per cent.

14 The owner was very satisfied. And then he also received positive

15 recommendations about me regarding my studies, where my average marks were

16 10. [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 Q. The promotion was to the position of general manager?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And although your details are protected and won't be revealed,

21 this would mean you became general manager at a young age.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Shortly thereafter, did Vukotic, paragraph 17, approach you -- not

24 shortly thereafter. Some months thereafter, did Vukotic approach you with

25 a proposition?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. When and what was the proposition?

3 MR. NICE: Usher.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was in June 1992. He proposed

5 that I should start cooperating with the state security service, and he

6 told me that Milovan Popivoda would come and talk to me, and another

7 person. He didn't say who that would be. He then said that

8 Milovan Popivoda was the chief of the Novi Sad centre for state security

9 and told me a few words about him, that he was very powerful, influential,

10 and that he was a close friend of Jovica Stanisic.

11 MR. NICE:

12 Q. When the meeting took place, where did it take place and who in

13 addition to Milovan Popivoda attended?

14 A. Milovan Popivoda came, and Veselin Dakovic was with him who worked

15 in the Novi Sad department of the centre for state security. It was the

16 department for external extremism, which included Croatian extremism as

17 they officially called it. They came to the cafeteria, the Royal

18 cafeteria, during the day when we were closed because we only started to

19 work in the evening. They introduced themselves to me and made their

20 offer that I should work for the state security service.

21 Q. Now, we've already had some evidence in this trial of the way in

22 which the state security service penetrated all walks of life. Can you

23 help us? Your position, your age, your understanding of these things, how

24 usual or unusual was it that such an approach should be made to a person

25 like you, in your position?

1 A. This was usual. Casinos, nightclubs, escort clubs were places

2 that were especially of interest to the service, gambling places where all

3 kinds of people circulate from all kinds of spheres. In other words, the

4 underworld.

5 Q. We're going to hear in due course of how you got involved with the

6 security service and what you did. From that, can you just -- so from

7 your experience, can you just tell us this: Had there been a

8 restructuring or was there a restructuring of the MUP that followed the

9 constitutional changes in Serbia, and if so, what was the effect of that

10 so far as the Novi Sad centre was concerned?

11 A. After the anti-constitutional putsch of October 1988 when the

12 Vojvodina leadership was replaced and after that the same coup d'etat was

13 repeated in Kosovo, constitutional changes were made and changes in the

14 organisation of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia.

15 Up until that time the provinces, as part of their executive

16 councils, had their own Ministries of the Interior, an independent

17 ministry which was in a coordination relationship with the republican

18 ministry in Belgrade. And after the constitutional changes and the

19 adoption of the appropriate laws, there were no longer provincial

20 Ministries of the Interior but chiefs of public security and state

21 security were appointed from Belgrade throughout Serbia. So the

22 provincial ministries of the interior were officially abolished along with

23 some other ministries.

24 Q. So therefore, what position, how important a position did Popivoda

25 hold given his position at Novi Sad?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. In view of the fact that the Novi Sad state security centre was

2 the biggest one in the province and also the biggest one after the

3 Belgrade one in the whole of Serbia, and in view of the environment that

4 I'm talking about, Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, as well as

5 in view of the personal relationship and contacts of Milovan Popivoda with

6 the members of the Backa Palanka lobby, so their friendships and other

7 relationships, Milovan Popivoda was the informal chief of the state

8 security service for Vojvodina, Eastern Slavonia, and Baranja, and he was

9 the personal friend of Jovica Stanisic and others of whom I will be

10 speaking about later.

11 Q. Just to tidy up in case I forget it later, your account of DB

12 centres. In July of 1996, did Popivoda tell you what happened to the DB

13 centres of Vukovar and Beli Manastir after the signing of the Erdut

14 agreement?

15 A. Yes. Mr. Popivoda told me that by the end of June, since our

16 conversation was in July 1996, that by the end of June of that same year,

17 the centres were dislocated from Vukovar, Beli Manastir, to Vojvodina,

18 thinking of the technical equipment as well as the most -- the majority of

19 the staff. And he responded clearly to my question. "Well, we will not

20 leave these areas so easily to the Croats, will we." Mr. Popivoda replied

21 to that, "Of course we will not. Our people will remain on the ground,

22 but they will be working or operating under different circumstances."

23 Q. That all emerged later in your relationship with Mr. Popivoda

24 let's now go back to the beginning of that relationship when he met you

25 with the man Veselin Dakovic. Who was Dakovic?

1 A. He was an operative worker of the state security service. He was

2 born in 1959 or 1960. I can't say exactly. But he worked in the sector

3 for or department for internal extremism, and he was one of the leaders

4 there. Personally, he was fairly intimate with Popivoda following the

5 Montenegrin ties he had with them and some other people too.

6 Q. Well, now, in due course, Witness C-048, you are going to give us

7 evidence of meetings at which you were present, involving very senior

8 officials. This is your first encounter with Popivoda and Dakovic. Is

9 there some significance of what happens later in how you were approached

10 and how you responded at this early time do you judge?

11 A. Yes, that's right. As I've already said, they came to the Royal.

12 Mr. Popivoda spoke first. He gave us a general overview of the historical

13 situation, the historical times in which we were living, all the rest of

14 it. And then after that he said that I was a good guy, a good student.

15 He praised me. He said that I was working in a good company, that the

16 proprietor was a good man himself. And he mentioned my salary which at

17 the time amounted to 1.000 German marks, which for those times in Serbia a

18 fantastically high salary. And he also said I knew people who were

19 interesting to them security-wise and that it would be a good thing if I

20 was to work for them, that is to say, observe and monitor those two

21 individuals. And their names and positions were Marko Kljajic. That was

22 the first one. And the priest in Petro Varadin, zupnik. And Petro

23 Varadin is a part of Novi Sad. The parish priest. And they thought that

24 they collaborated with the Croatian intelligence service.

25 The other person was one of my best friends. We were of a similar

1 age. His name was Robert Coban and at the time he was editor-in-chief of

2 independent newspaper or rather weekly entitled Nezavisni Svet or

3 Independent World.

4 Q. Just pausing there for a second. Now, you were basically being

5 asked to provide information on two friends of yours, your contemporary

6 Coban and the priest whom I think was several years older, Kljajic;

7 correct?

8 A. Yes, that is correct.

9 Q. And in short and we'll look at it in a few more sentences, but in

10 short did you agree to do what was asked of you?

11 A. Yes, I did agree.

12 Q. As I said earlier, your reaction to this may feature as an element

13 in your judgement in what you were allowed to observe later, but help us,

14 what was your reason at this time, if you can now articulate it, for

15 agreeing to work for the DB providing information on two friends of yours?

16 A. Well, to be quite frank, at the time I accepted the offer made to

17 me, I thought, "well, all right. I'll send in some general information."

18 But I nevertheless began working on concrete issues straight away.

19 The reasons were not political and -- were political -- were not

20 political and ideological. It was quite contrary to what I did, and I'm

21 really ashamed of that today.

22 Can I describe the reason as being the pragmatism of life. Like

23 any young man, I was enticed by the high salary and the possibility of a

24 good life. At a time when most of my fellows had some very existential,

25 very real material problems.

1 Q. Was there a second meeting after the first? If so, whereabouts

2 was it held and how much later?

3 A. Yes, there was. And it was soon afterwards. A week, ten days at

4 the most after the first meeting, in the building of the Novi Sad centre

5 of state security, which is located in Bulevar Oslobodjenja Street, next

6 to the old building of the Nafta-Gas company, and that is where I had a

7 meeting once again with Milovan Popivoda and Veselin Dakovic.

8 Q. What passed between you on this occasion? What was said and so

9 on?

10 A. On that occasion, I handed over a list of people who came to visit

11 Mr. Kljajic and those that Robert Coban was in contact with, and that he

12 saw that that was it, that I had started to collaborate properly, because

13 the information they had up until that time coincided and were along the

14 lines of what I told them. I told them who I had seen there.

15 And after that, Mr. Popivoda started talking about the historical

16 times we were living in and said that the goal was, the object was to have

17 as many Croats leave Vojvodina as possible so that, as he put it, a stable

18 border should be set up in the border belt between Vojvodina and Croatia,

19 and, as he put it, with hard-line Serbs from Krajina.

20 In that context, a particular thorn in his tied was the priest

21 Marko Kljajic. And many of the parishioners who wanted to leave and go to

22 Croatia, he would try and prevail upon them to stay in their own homes, on

23 their own thresholds to look after their national identities, ethnic

24 identities.

25 Q. Did Popivoda explain to you how this plan was to be effected?

1 What methods were to be used to make people move?

2 A. At that first meeting or, rather, the second meeting, but that's

3 when he began to make concrete mention of these things, he said that the

4 method should be used to intimidate the richest and well-to-do -- most

5 well-to-do people in the villages where there was a majority Croatian

6 population or where there were a considerable number of Croatian

7 inhabitants. And once they saw that the most influential people and the

8 richest people were leaving, the others would follow suit.

9 He also said that violence and liquidation were not the methods of

10 choice for Vojvodina. He even mentioned in a negative context the killing

11 of an old man in a field in a place called Hrtkovci in Srem which took

12 place in those days of June 1992. And his words were, "Look at what those

13 idiots have done in Hrtkovci." He wasn't worried about the killing of the

14 old man. He knew that this would cause problems with the international

15 community and what the public reactions to it would be.

16 Q. Did he explain, with any further particularity or detail, why

17 liquidations in Vojvodina were not acceptable? Did he contrast the

18 position in Vojvodina with the position anywhere else in the former

19 Yugoslavia?

20 A. He mention that had they were not acceptable because Vojvodina was

21 not a part of the battle area, the war area, and that as I've already said

22 this would create problems with the international community, and if this

23 did happen, for example, in Eastern Slavonia and Baranja, this could

24 always be described to the anarchy that is customary when you have a war

25 and things of that kind in those areas.

1 Q. Was there a third meeting? If so, where? Who was present, and

2 what happened?

3 A. The third meeting took place soon afterwards, and in addition to

4 Mr. Popivoda and Dakovic, Djordje Banjac was there too, and he was the

5 head of the department, the technical department for bugging. I don't

6 know what this was, the official title of it was, but I do know what it

7 dealt with, bugging. And they asked me to bug the premises, both the

8 offices and the residential premises of priest Marko Kljajic and

9 Robert Coban, to set up a wiring system, and that's what I did.

10 Q. Where did this meeting with Popivoda, Dakovic, and Banjac occur?

11 A. In the state security service building.

12 Q. That's the same office as for the second meeting; is that correct?

13 A. Yes, that's right.

14 Q. We've set out in the summary the means you used to bug these two

15 premises of your former friends, and you can give answers about the detail

16 of that if asked. Is it sufficient to say you did manage to bug the

17 premises that you were asked to bug?

18 A. Let me be more specific. I enabled the service to enter the

19 premises and have their technicians place the bugging devices where they

20 considered it to be necessary. I abused the confidence placed in me by

21 the people who had up until that time been my close friends.

22 Q. Were you aware one way or another as to whether their telephones

23 were intercepted or tapped?

24 A. Yes. The service did do that via the post office from their

25 central building. There was no doubt about that.

1 Q. Were you given any instructions as to your future conduct in

2 relation to both of these friends or former friends of yours?

3 A. Yes. I was told to tell them what they wanted to hear, and they

4 explained to me how this sort of intelligence interview was to be

5 conducted. And Milovan Popivoda would always stress, "Don't ask them

6 anything. Just listen and they'll tell you everything themselves in due

7 course, in the course of the conversation."

8 Q. Was there a particular incident at Kljajic's house in which you

9 had an involvement and of which you can give a history and of which you

10 hold a view, I think, a personal view?

11 A. Yes. At the end of December 1992, Milovan Popivoda told me, and

12 I'm quoting his very words, that I should bear pressure on the priest to

13 have him leave Vojvodina. End of quotation.

14 They asked me to learn when Marko Kljajic was going to travel to

15 Croatia, and that's what I did. I told them that the -- it was planned

16 for the beginning of January. I can't give you an exact date now, but it

17 must have been round about the Orthodox Christmas, one or two days before

18 or after, in that period. And the two refugees -- two refugees attacked

19 his house and attacked his mother. And she was an elderly lady of about

20 70. But she was fairly resilient despite her age, so she was able to

21 defend herself, and her attackers finally fled.

22 Q. Did that event receive any media attention?

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

24 MR. NICE: I'm sorry.

25 Q. Did that event receive any media attention?

1 A. Yes, it did. The papers wrote about it.

2 Q. What effect did that have on other Croats?

3 A. It was designed to have an effect and it quite certainly did. It

4 instilled fear in the rest of the Croats, and they wanted to have them

5 think that if they attacked the priest, what would happen to us? And

6 Popivoda told me that the service incited the writings in the press about

7 that event. They encouraged them to write about it. Not in the

8 affirmative sense. They didn't write positively about it. But the

9 message conveyed was quite clear. The message behind the newspaper

10 articles was quite clear.

11 Q. Did anything happen to the men who to your knowledge had carried

12 out the attack?

13 A. They were taken into custody and brought to a police station, and

14 some legal proceedings were started against them but nothing came of it as

15 far as I know. And they were given a very mild conditional sentence of

16 some kind. They didn't have to go to prison at all.

17 Q. You're still at the fairly early stage of your work for the DB.

18 You carried on for several years, but tell us, did you ever have a DB

19 identification card?

20 A. No. I never carried an ID card. I had never had one, but I did

21 have an emergency number, and it was 22862, and that was the number given

22 to me for any emergencies. The area code was 021. That is the area code

23 for Novi Sad. At that time there were no mobile phones yet, and when

24 Mr. Popivoda got a mobile phone himself, he gave me his personal mobile

25 phone number and it was 063201481.

1 Q. As your relationship with Popivoda developed and continued, how

2 regularly did you meet him, where? Who made reports, and did things

3 change as to who made reports?

4 A. Let's take this step-by-step. I would have a meeting with him

5 once or twice a month either at the Royal or in the DB centre. Sometimes

6 he was alone. At other times Veselin Dakovic would be present as well.

7 And reports -- the reports referred to the people visiting the priest,

8 Marko Kljajic. They were most interested in Ivo Beslic who was a priest,

9 a parish priest in Sremska Kamenica then there was Branko Melvinger who

10 was the president of the democratic alliance of Croats of Vojvodina. Then

11 there was Niko Kraljevic, the priest in Hrtkovci. Zeljko Garmaz who was a

12 journalist at the time, and today he is an editor of the paper Vjesnik.

13 He would go to Belgrade and Novi Sad fairly frequently and would always

14 see the priest Marko. He was also interested in a person called

15 Tomislav Basic who was an army retiree.

16 Q. I think that is enough for the targets of interest some of whom

17 are dealt with at paragraph 32. As to reports, did there come a time when

18 you prepared reports yourself?

19 A. Yes, there did. At the beginning, Popivoda and Dakovic asked me

20 to tell them word by word what I had been doing. When I got into the job,

21 I talked about Popivoda and Dakovic was a younger man in terms of age and

22 position and he would take down notes. But very soon I was able to

23 differentiate between what was vital and what wasn't so important and I

24 was able to write the reports myself after that. And so in addition to

25 handing over the reports, we would also discuss other matters during our

1 meetings. That is to say I didn't have to spend so much time reporting to

2 them. I handed over my written reports.

3 Q. Do you keep -- or did you keep copies of those reports or did you

4 hand them all over to them?

5 A. I handed them all over to them.

6 Q. Were you instructed in writing or just verbally?

7 A. Always verbally.

8 Q. Throughout your time working for the DB, were you also working at

9 the Royal casino?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. When did you finish working for the DB?

12 A. I stopped contact sometime in the year 2000, although from the end

13 of 1998 they became less frequent in that period.

14 Q. Turning then to the casino itself. Was it visited by several if

15 not many famous people or people famous at the time?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can you list them really by frequency, that is, those who -- those

18 important people who went there most frequently and then coming down to

19 those who went there less frequently or only once? Of those who were

20 regular attendees, can you tell us their names and just in a sentence what

21 their role was?

22 A. They would come to the cafe or the restaurant of the facility.

23 Milorad Vucelic came by mostly. Vucelic. The director general of

24 Radio-television Serbia of the day. He had a party post as well. I can't

25 tell you which one exactly.

1 Then there was Milovan Popivoda, the head of the Novi Sad centre

2 of state security. And his brother Milutin Popivoda, The director of

3 marketing for Radio-television Serbia. Mihalj Kertes. Up until the end

4 of August, there was the deputy Minister for Internal Affairs until the

5 end of 1992. That was his official title, position. Then there was

6 Radovan Pankov, one of the vice-presidents and later on the president of

7 the provincial board of the Socialist Party of Serbia, the party whose

8 president was the accused here. Another man who would come was

9 Jovica Stanisic, the chief of the state security service of the MUP of

10 Serbia. Then there was Franko Simatovic, nicknamed Frenki Simatovic, the

11 commander of the special units or special operation units of the state

12 security service of the MUP of Serbia. Then there was Marko Kekovic,

13 director of television, Television Novi Sad. As well as many other

14 medium-ranking officials. Jovo Barosevic, a case in point, who was

15 director of the Posomi [phoen] Prostor company in Novi Sad. And it was

16 through him that various illegal operations were conducted or operation

17 with elements of protectionism.

18 Q. Very well. Now, you've given us several names. There may be one

19 or two others that you can help us with. Is there any particular person

20 or persons who came only infrequently or only once, to your knowledge, to

21 the casino?

22 A. Yes. The person accused here, Slobodan Milosevic.

23 Q. He came what, once or more than once?

24 A. Just once.

25 Q. We'll come to the circumstances of that visit later. Can you help

1 us, please, if you knew anything of the following people or ever saw

2 anything of the following two people: Goran Hadzic, or the man known as

3 Arkan?

4 A. Yes, I did see them.

5 Q. Tell us a little bit about Hadzic, what you knew about him and

6 what his visit or visits was like?

7 A. Well, Goran Hadzic before the war, and this is common knowledge,

8 was a warehouse clerk. He was the person of low intellectual and human

9 capabilities, an individual who frequently used his position as so-called

10 president of the so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina, the RSK. And one

11 of his main goals, to be quite frank with you here, was to eat and drink

12 without having to pay for it in restaurants.

13 At the meetings that I'm going to talk about later on, he usually

14 kept quiet. He was the classical type of puppet. And he didn't mind

15 being in that position himself, because I assume he was aware of his very

16 meagre and modest intellectual, moral, and human capabilities.

17 Q. With which of the others that you've named --

18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

19 MR. NICE:

20 Q. With which of the others that you've named did Hadzic have most to

21 deal, if it's possible to say and if it isn't we'll move on?

22 A. He had -- He mostly contacted with Frenki Simatovic,

23 Mihalj Kertes, Milovan Popivoda.

24 Q. I also asked you about the man known as Arkan. Can you tell us

25 anything about him, and if you can, who he had contact with.

1 A. Arkan would come to the cafeteria several times privately to meet

2 with Veselin Vukotic because they were friends otherwise, dating back to

3 the 1980s. They did similar work, and both of them were from the crime

4 scene, low-life and classical killers.

5 I apologise, Mr. Nice, but do you mean Arkan's contacts with

6 political leaders and so on? The next part of your question, what was it?

7 Could you repeat?

8 Q. With the people you've already named as coming to the casino, if

9 you were aware of his having any particular contact with any of them. If

10 not, say so.

11 A. Well, I do know that he did have contacts with Frenki Simatovic,

12 Mihalj Kertes. Mostly with those two.

13 Q. Of all these people, setting on one side, please, the accused in

14 this case, of all the others, which seemed to be the superior, the senior

15 person?

16 A. Milorad Vucelic and Jovica Stanisic.

17 Q. From your general conversation with these two -- sorry. Did you

18 have conversation with these men yourself in your capacity within the

19 casino or did you just see them at a distance?

20 A. On several occasions, I personally talked to them. Not so much

21 with Jovica Stanisic, but with Milorad Vucelic I did during those years,

22 right up to a year or two years ago when I saw him last. At least two or

23 three times a month. I would meet him two or three times a month because

24 that's when he would come by the Royal, because he was a close friend of

25 the proprietor, Vesko Vukotic. And he was a friend and remains a friend

1 today. He still maintains contact with those people who on the INTERPOL

2 wanted list.

3 Q. Did either of these men, Stanisic or Vucelic, speak of the accused

4 to you when they spoke to you and if so in what context or setting?

5 A. They often mentioned him. Always mentioned him as chief. "Chief

6 said this," or, "Chief said that." That's how they would refer to him in

7 their conversation.

8 Q. Did either or both of them indicate how easy or difficult it was

9 for them to have contact with the accused?

10 A. Until 1995 in particular, when they wanted to get an accused, they

11 were very close to him. They had cordial relations with him. And then in

12 the mid-1990s, they said they were thwarted in this by the wife of the

13 accused.

14 MR. NICE: Your Honour, there are a few photographs to look at. I

15 think, although I said there would be no need, to go into private session

16 for the first two photographs with your leave which relate to the very

17 short passage of evidence. At least one of them does that we've had in

18 private session so far should be dealt with in private session. It will

19 only take a minute.

20 [Private session]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 19650 - redacted - private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 [Open session]

3 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

4 MR. NICE:

5 Q. Look at this photograph. What was it?

6 A. The outside. This is the club, the cafeteria, and casino Royal on

7 the first floor of the hotel Putnik.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

9 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection. I don't

11 understand why a photograph showing a singer and another person that is

12 mentioned is being given at closed session as if it was some kind of

13 secret photograph, and we're talking about a --

14 JUDGE MAY: We will go back into closed session -- private

15 session.

16 [Private session]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [Open session]

5 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

6 MR. NICE: Next photograph, please.

7 Q. Of whom is this a photograph?

8 A. This photograph from left to right, professional killer

9 Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic. In the middle is an unknown person. And the

10 next person is Milovan Popivoda, the chief of the Novi Sad state security

11 centre.

12 Q. Next photograph, please. Who is shown here?

13 A. From left to right Vesko Vukotic and Milutin Popivoda, the

14 marketing director of Radio-television Serbia and the brother of

15 Milovan Popivoda.

16 Q. Again, was that taken at the Royal club?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Paragraph 55 of the summary. The topic is whether people with

19 criminal connections came to the club. But I also want you, if you can,

20 to help the Judges with a fuller picture, if you can give it, of any

21 connections there may have been between criminals at the club and people

22 from other walks of life, including politicians.

23 First of all, did people with known criminal backgrounds visit the

24 club?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Can you name one or two in particular? Deal with them one at a

2 time and give an account of what you learnt of the individual's activities

3 and history.

4 A. Darko Asanin used to come, Andrija Draskovic. Arkan would come

5 from time to time. So I would say that these three people were the most

6 colourful.

7 Q. Let's deal with --

8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

9 MR. NICE:

10 Q. Let's deal with Darko Asanin first. What can you tell us about

11 him, and in particular of what enterprise he engaged in about which you

12 hold a strong view.

13 A. Darko Asanin was born in 1958 in Belgrade. He was a criminal, a

14 person from a criminal environment and an active associate of the state

15 security service, also known for the fact that he liquidated political

16 immigrants for the secret police. He was a cousin of Pavle Bulatovic, the

17 federal defence minister. He had strong connections with all the people

18 who would come to the Royal cafeteria and casino. As far as his

19 activities, Darko Asanin in October 1997 organised a group of young men

20 headed by Petar Divljakovic, AKA Pera Divljak, whose main task was to

21 cause unrest in Montenegro prior to the forthcoming presidential

22 elections.

23 Darko Asanin sided strongly on the side of Momir Bulatovic in

24 those elections. That is the option that was supported by the accused

25 here as well. The boys who went in order to cause unrest in Montenegro

1 were caught very quickly because Pera Divljakovic is a person of low

2 intellect and he is not very capable of personally organising anything, so

3 they were arrested right away. And Petar Divljakovic managed to escape in

4 time and to hide. The persons who were caught in Montenegro told

5 everything about the reasons why they were sent there and what their

6 objectives were and this is also something that Darko Asanin personally

7 told me about.

8 MR. NICE: Your Honour, this particular passage can be found at

9 paragraph 69 so we've taken care of that. But I want to come back to

10 paragraph 57.

11 Q. Witness C-048, staying still with Darko Asanin, is there another

12 activity that he engaged in with regard to Croatia that you can tell us

13 about?

14 A. Yes. Twice in the course of 1993, I went on trips with him to the

15 then-occupied territory in the Republic of Croatia, to Erdut. This

16 occupied territory was called the Serbian Republic of Krajina even though

17 this amounted to a classic occupation according to everything that was

18 known at the time. He was a personal friend, as I said, of

19 Frenki Simatovic and Mihalj Kertes and the others.

20 Q. What happened and what did you learn of what was afoot?

21 A. You mean the trips to Erdut?

22 Q. I'll come back to Erdut later. Can we go back to an incident? If

23 I ask you about the use that was made of a checkpoint at Orasje, can you

24 help us, please, with what you knew of an enterprise involving Asanin?

25 A. Yes, I can. This is the most terrible thing that I had heard

1 about during my cooperation with the service and the time that I

2 socialised with those people.

3 Darko Asanin, and he personally admitted this to me and this

4 information was confirmed to me also, and I will talk about that later, he

5 had the task of organising the transfer of large quantities of heroin into

6 Croatia as a form of special warfare with the aim of destroying or

7 weakening the fighting morale of the Croatian youth and generally in order

8 to cause problems in Croatia, because it is well known that drug addiction

9 causes other kinds of crimes as well.

10 Darko Asanin clearly told me that this was being conducted through

11 the checkpoint in Orasje, that they had their own man in Zagreb who was

12 distributing enormous quantities of heroin throughout Croatia, whose name

13 was Zeljko Sobot he was later killed in a conflict between the so-called

14 Serbian and Albanian Mafia in Zagreb.

15 This information was later come firmed to me by some people in

16 Zagreb, specifically one person that I met in the office of the mayor,

17 Zlatko Canjuga as well as by certain people from the criminal milieu. And

18 if it's necessary, I can give you the names of all the people who

19 confirmed this information for me.

20 After I heard this - I'm going back to 1993 now when I heard this

21 in Darko Asanin's house - I was horrified and flabbergasted because this

22 monstrous activity bordered on Nazi type of activities. I asked Milovan,

23 Milovan Popivoda, if this was possible. He first jumped up from his chair

24 angrily and with the words - I apologise to the Court but I'm going to

25 quote him - "Well, fuck him. I hope he's not saying that."

1 Milovan Popivoda told me after that this was an idea of Jovica, and he

2 said something to the effect, "Well, the Siptars in Belgrade are doing the

3 same to us," which, to tell the truth, is true. And in their opinion,

4 that was one of the most effective ways to conduct special warfare.

5 Q. And when it was said that the Albanians were saying they were

6 doing the same to us or to them, whereabouts was it said and you seem to

7 accept that this was true, whereabouts was it said that they were doing

8 this, bringing drugs in?

9 A. In the same context, in the conversation in 1993 it was stated to

10 me. And this refers to the period in the early 1990s when the price of

11 heroin went down drastically on the streets of both Belgrade and Zagreb,

12 and it was possible practically to buy these drugs for nothing

13 practically. And it was accessible to everybody. And it was clear that

14 this had not only a financial, material effect but also a political

15 effect.

16 Of course people in that chain, from the middle of the chain to

17 the bottom of the chain worked only for material gain, and they didn't

18 know what the whole thing was about. I don't have specific information

19 that I could talk about the activities of the Albanian lobby or the

20 Albanian immigration, however you want to call them. I'm talking about

21 what the Serbian state security did through criminal elements in Croatia

22 or as they said conducted special warfare. I also know that --

23 Q. Carry on then.

24 A. -- That in February 2001, in the safe of the Komercijalna Bank in

25 Belgrade, 600 kilogrammes of pure heroin were found dating from those

1 years, without any kind of receipt of the -- about the origin of the

2 heroin, why it was being there. And also, it is a fact that the state

3 security service is not responsible for combatting drug trafficking.

4 These drugs, and it was obvious to see clearly from the

5 documentation --

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. I think we'll just stick to what the witness can

7 tell us about directly.

8 MR. NICE: May I ask one more question about Asanin, if the Court

9 was looking at the clock?

10 Q. How frequent or infrequent a visitor was Asanin to the casino, and

11 did he mix with the other -- with the other people you've spoken of who

12 have a political background?

13 A. He came to the casino frequently as Vesko's best friend. These

14 people also met at his house in Krnjesevci as well, and they also went to

15 the exclusive club called Legat which was in Dedinje right next or right

16 behind the Libyan embassy. The people who visited him were the following:

17 Frenki Simatovic, Mihalj Kertes, Milutin and Milovan Popivoda.

18 Bosko Ubojevic also came he was an official of the state security service

19 as well. And of course Milorad Vucelic who got a gold Rolex worth 150.000

20 German marks from Darko Asanin about which the accused directly asked

21 Vucelic here about where he got this watch from.

22 Q. Thank you?

23 MR. NICE: Maybe I'd better deal with that after the break if

24 there is to be one.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will adjourn now.

1 Witness C-048, you're giving evidence. Don't speak to anybody

2 about it until it's over, and don't let anybody spoke to you, of course,

3 and that does include members of the Prosecution team. Keep it to

4 yourself until it's over.

5 Very well. Twenty minutes.

6 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.

7 --- On resuming at 12.41 p.m.

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

9 MR. NICE: Paragraph 60, page 12.

10 Q. The accused and the gold watch and the man Vucelic. Can you just

11 give us a couple of sentences, a summary of that part of your evidence?

12 A. Yes. This was a present that Mr. Vucelic received from the

13 criminal Darko Asanin, a gold Rolex watch worth 150.000 German marks.

14 When the accused heard about it he was very angry with Mr. Vucelic. He

15 told him that in that way criminals -- in that way state functionaries are

16 starting to work for the criminals and not other way around, which he

17 thought was normal. Milorad Vucelic himself told me this. Darko Asanin

18 was angry because Milorad responded to the accused Slobodan Milosevic that

19 he got the watch from him. Darko Asanin said, "well, he could have said

20 that he got it from Tom, Dick or Harry. Why did he say he got it from

21 me?"

22 Q. Back to paragraph 55 in the summary, when asking you about

23 criminals that visited the club you mentioned in addition to Darko Vucelic

24 Andrija Draskovic. We haven't dealt with him in the summary but before I

25 come back to him, was there a cousin of Vukotic known to you who had

1 associations in the criminal world?

2 A. Yes. He was a cousin, Veselin Vlahovic, AKA Batica or Batko.

3 Batica's brother had married Vesko's sister and Veselin Vlahovic, Batica,

4 was brought to Sarajevo by Vukotic as a boxer. This is a person of very

5 slight intellectual capacities. And not only that, it is a question of

6 how sane that man is at all. He was a boxer in Sarajevo. Very soon he

7 gave that up. He became involved in crime. At the beginning of the war,

8 he joined the SDS paramilitary formations. He was a bodyguard of Momcilo

9 "Momo" Mandic. He committed horrible crimes. He looted a lot in

10 Sarajevo at the beginning of the war, and then he returned to Novi Sad

11 where he --

12 JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you'd just listen to counsel, please.

13 Perhaps we could shorten the matter somewhat.

14 MR. NICE:

15 Q. Where did you get your information of what Veselin Vlahovic had

16 done?

17 A. Since this is a person if I may say who -- it's a question of how

18 sane he is. He actually said that himself. He boasted with -- about

19 those crimes, and he would also spend enormous amounts of money.

20 Q. I'm going to interrupt you. Did you speak to him and he speak to

21 you on a regular basis?

22 A. We met a couple of times. I wouldn't call it a conversation. It

23 was more him talking. I just sat there. I didn't want to contradict him

24 or say anything because it seemed as if he wasn't all there. I would just

25 say, "yes, yes." And on that occasion, he actually boasted about his

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 crimes.

2 Q. And finally, was he a person even known in the Sarajevo press by a

3 nickname?

4 A. Yes. The Sarajevo press wrote about him in 2001 when he escaped

5 from the Spuz prison, and there was also -- there were also reports that

6 this Tribunal conducted an investigation about him. And should I explain

7 why I said quote unquote or allegedly escaped from Spuz? Should I talk

8 about that?

9 Q. No. I'd just like you to give us his nickname and we'll move on

10 to another topic for want of time.

11 A. We knew him as Batica at the Royal, but the Sarajevo press and the

12 people in Sarajevo knew him by the nickname Batko.

13 Q. Finally you've mentioned Andrija Draskovic although his details do

14 not appear in the summary. Just in a sentence, was he a regular visitor?

15 What if, any criminality, was he connected to? But really, just a

16 sentence or two at the most.

17 A. Yes. He was a regular visitor, and he was involved in crime.

18 Q. You've told us something of Frenki's attendance at Asanin's house.

19 Was there an escort or prostitute facility connected with all this? If

20 so, a sentence or so about that?

21 A. If you're thinking about the Royal, yes, we did have such an

22 agency. Formally, it was a fashion agency for the purposes of the public.

23 Q. Were girls or young women provided for men? If so, whereabouts?

24 A. Yes. They were models, but at the same time they worked as

25 escorts. They were used for - how shall I put it? - for the satisfaction

1 of the certain needs of politicians and other persons who came there. We

2 didn't have special rooms where they would go, but they would meet there

3 and contacts would be made.

4 Q. Very well.

5 A. Then they would take them to --

6 Q. I'm sorry my interjections have to be brief, but I mustn't allow

7 you to speak at the same time my microphone is on.

8 The question of drugs briefly. Were there any drugs in the Royal?

9 A. We were never involved in that. Vesko Vukotic nor I myself, but

10 we provided narcotics for certain inspectors of the state security service

11 which indulged in that kind of, let me put it that way, relaxation. And

12 I'm thinking primarily as Veselin Dakovic who was a younger man. And also

13 we were in constant touch with drug dealer Nenad Opacic who is currently

14 serving a prison sentence for these crimes, who would come to the casino

15 and --

16 Q. Very well. So far as the accused is concerned. We know there is

17 only the one visit of which you're aware and you're going to deal with

18 that later. Can you say anything about his knowledge of what his

19 associates were doing by way of dealing or visiting this place which had a

20 criminal element to it?

21 A. As I knew all the circumstances, it is quite certain that the

22 accused, Slobodan Milosevic, knew that the persons mentioned came to the

23 facility and that they socialised with Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic,

24 Darko Asanin and the rest. Of course I can't claim that he knew all the

25 details of that association, but in general terms, he knew where they

1 were, who they were friends with, and what types of dealings they were

2 involved in.

3 Q. Did you have any knowledge of or any contacts with the movements

4 of his children?

5 A. His son Marko Milosevic, on the 15th of April, 1994, was at our

6 discotheque when Zdravko Colic's album was promoted. And also I saw

7 several photographs where Veselin Vukotic was with Marija and

8 Marko Milosevic, standing together with them.

9 MR. NICE: The Red Berets, Your Honours, we've already dealt with

10 paragraph 69. I'm going to deal with paragraph 71 before coming back to

11 64. I think it's more logical.

12 Q. When was the first time you heard Red Berets mentioned and in what

13 context?

14 A. I first heard it mentioned, that is to say when I heard those two

15 words used, Red Berets, was in July 1992 when Jovica Stanisic and

16 Milovan Popivoda came to the Royal where we were sitting around already,

17 Veselin Vukotic and myself, and they talked about the formation of the

18 unit. And that was the first time they mentioned those two words,

19 Red Berets. As to the unit itself, I had heard about that before.

20 Q. From whom and what had you heard?

21 A. I heard it from Milan Popivoda, who said that at the end of 1991,

22 a political decision was taken to establish a specials operation

23 unit -- Special Operations Unit. And the reason was because on the

24 battlefront in Croatia, there were a lot of units there, either under no

25 control whatsoever or units which were not under the full control of

1 anybody of the and they wanted to have a unit with a firm military

2 organisation, a clear and strong chain of command, that is to say, based

3 on the principles of subordination in which they could have complete trust

4 and confidence. And he also mentioned in that regard that it was only

5 Arkan's unit that was considered to be reliable, and that Seselj at that

6 time was working, as he put it, for the same cause, and that in the

7 barracks in Bubanj Potok, that is a place near Belgrade, Seselj's

8 volunteers were being trained, and also that there were various

9 paramilitary groups but that the service had to have a unit under its own

10 control.

11 Q. Before we move on, to get a little more detail of this, can you

12 just help us about notes? This is the first time where we may or the

13 Chamber may find it helpful to look at notes.

14 Did you keep some form of diary?

15 A. Yes, I did keep some form of diary, and it contain matters of this

16 kind which were interesting to me and some private things as well.

17 Q. When you first met the investigator who took a statement from you,

18 did you provide him with your own extract of entries from your diary?

19 A. You mean to the investigators, whether I supplied them with a

20 copy?

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. The investigator saw it in my own home, but they didn't take the

23 diary away with them.

24 Q. Later did you provide written, tract from that diary? Not

25 extract, notes of and extract from.

1 A. Yes, I did. I handed them over.

2 Q. In preparing to give evidence, have copies of those notes been

3 marked in the margins with either a blue or a red or possibly in one case

4 a blue and a red line indicating, so far as the red is concerned, that

5 this is material pretty well taken not verbatim but taken directly from

6 your diary, the blue passages being passages which are notes you simply

7 made in preparation for speaking with the investigator?

8 A. Yes.

9 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I don't invite the witness necessarily to

10 have any part of his diary with him for this passage of his evidence. But

11 for your assistance, if you're interested in following it, it's page 11 in

12 the English of 12, and it is, for the accused if he wants to find it

13 because he may do, it's page 6472, the last four digits, in the B/C/S

14 version if he wants to follow it there. But I'm not inviting the witness

15 to look at it on this occasion, although, as I've said, I will when we

16 come to the meetings.

17 Q. Very well. Then tell us please, Witness C-048, when you first

18 heard of this group later described as the Red Berets, were they given any

19 name and who was in charge of them?

20 A. No specific names were mentioned. Milan Popivoda said that for

21 the needs of the Red Berets, they had either released part of the

22 criminals from the prisons or they were amnestied and didn't have to serve

23 their prison term.

24 Q. Who was in charge of them?

25 A. Frenki Simatovic was in charge of them.

1 Q. I think you may have told us this. I'm afraid I haven't checked

2 it off. Can you explain just in a sentence the political decision, if

3 there was one, by which this group was set up and the political purpose or

4 the political/military purpose of this group?

5 A. Of course a political decision was made. A political decision had

6 to be made for the establishment of a unit of that kind, and that decision

7 was made at the end of 1991 to set up units which would be within the

8 framework of the security service and the purpose of which would be to act

9 on the front, on the battleground in Croatia first and later on in

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11 Q. Was anything said about the man Seselj and any groups associated

12 with him? If so, by whom was it said?

13 A. Milovan Popivoda said this. Seselj was mentioned in a positive

14 context, but he added that he wouldn't be allowed to have his unit just

15 like that or, rather, that he did work at the time to the advantage of the

16 general cause, as he put it, but the service wanted to have a unit of its

17 own under its full control. And he also said that Seselj's volunteers

18 were trained at the barracks in Bubanj Potok but he also emphasised you

19 never knew how Seselj might turn.

20 Q. Not in the summary, but is there any other group of a like kind or

21 broadly similar kind that you can give or that you can remember being

22 spoken of by name? Any other named group of paramilitaries?

23 A. Mention was made of the White Eagles, Beli Orlovi. The Dusan

24 Silni detachment, and Bokan's White Eagles in the context of anarchy. And

25 of course Arkan's unit was mentioned in that context too.

1 Q. Was anything said about -- by whom these groups were supplied with

2 arms, and if so, who said it?

3 A. It was mentioned on several occasions, and they said that Frenki

4 was the main person in charge of the distribution of weapons to Arkan's

5 unit. As far as Seselj was concerned and his volunteers, they said that

6 the training was being done in Bubanj Potok, which was a military

7 establishment, a barracks, and that they were receiving weapons from the

8 regime.

9 Q. Now back, please, to paragraph 64 of the summary, page 13.

10 Did you see anything of people whom you understood to be

11 Red Berets at the Royal? If so, who and on what frequency?

12 A. Yes, I did see them. I saw Zivojin "Zivko" Ivanovic and he was

13 best known by his nickname Zika Crnogorac or "Zika the Montenegrin" and he

14 would come by most frequently because he knew the proprietor from earlier

15 on and he was also a Montenegrin like the proprietor. And there was

16 Petar Divljakovic, and he was better known as Pera Divljak. And on one

17 occasion I saw and met Dragan Mijovic too, and I knew him from when the

18 time I did my regular military service.

19 Q. Did these men or any of them speak of their activities in the Red

20 Berets? If so, what did you learn from what they said?

21 A. Yes, they all talked about it. Zika Ivanovic "Crnogorac" would

22 talk about his time in the Red Berets. Pera Divljakovic, Pera Divljak

23 would brag about the crimes he had committed. And he is also not fully

24 accountable as a person. To explain to the Court what kind of man this

25 was, after everything, he didn't end up in a mental hospital but he did

1 end up in a monastery at Fruska Gora. He was of diminished responsibility

2 and liked to drag about his crimes and even exaggerated in my opinion,

3 because in the atmosphere that prevailed during those days in Serbia,

4 especially in that particular environment, crimes against the Croats and

5 Muslims were heralded as some form of prestige.

6 Q. Would you tell us of anything you heard about any Red Berets about

7 activities qualifying if you feel you should by your assessment as to

8 whether the person concerned was exaggerating what he claimed?

9 A. Petar Divljakovic mentioned specifically in more concrete terms

10 the massacre of Croatian policemen, and he called them and referred to

11 them as Ustashas. At the end of November nearby Borovo Selo where 20

12 people were killed and thrown into the Danube. And he said that he had

13 done that with a group of friends or, rather, with his unit. And there

14 was another friend of his called Ivan Andric, and in my opinion, he didn't

15 exaggerate that event. But he did exaggerate a massacre at Mostar where

16 he said that they had killed over a hundred Ustashas and balijas. The

17 balijas, I am quoting that term. It was a term he used to refer to the

18 Muslims by.

19 Petar Divljakovic, in the context of the rest of the Croats in

20 eastern Croatia, as they called it the RSK, Republic of Srpska Krajina or,

21 rather, the occupied territory of the Republic of Croatia, he said he

22 would have killed them all but Frenki didn't allow him to do so. End of

23 quotation.

24 Q. I want now to move to meetings. Was there a meeting in August

25 1992 that you can recall and of which you made notes?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. May I just be allowed --

3 Q. Yes. Sorry. Carry on.

4 A. I was going to explain the reasons for their meeting and how this

5 informal group operated, because I think we skipped over that. About the

6 Backa Palanka lobby, that's what I'm thinking about.

7 Q. I'm not going to skip over it but I want to raise something with

8 the Chamber first.

9 MR. NICE: The Court will find the notes of this part at page 5 of

10 the notes. The accused can find it at pages 6455 to 6458 if he wants to

11 follow it in the notes. I would ask that the witness can have the

12 document in front of him if he wishes, either to refer to it or even

13 frankly to read from it as a more efficient way of getting the detail.

14 But it's a matter for the Chamber.

15 JUDGE MAY: Just so I can understand it, although it's called a

16 diary, these are essentially notes which he's made from the diary.

17 MR. NICE: Correct.

18 JUDGE MAY: With interpolations which he himself has more recently

19 put in.

20 MR. NICE: Right. As I understand it is simply an explanation of

21 what was in can -- either explanation or a transcription of or a

22 transcription and an expansion so as to make sense of notes that are

23 contemporaneous and essentially complete. The passages sidelined in blue

24 are notes that he's drawn from his memory more generally. So that if we

25 look at page 5 and I shan't rehearse --

1 JUDGE KWON: Before that, did you mention where the original diary

2 is now?

3 MR. NICE: I didn't and I should have done and I'll get the

4 witness to deal that straight away and then we'll come back to it.

5 Q. Witness C-048, I should have asked you. Forgive my oversight.

6 The original diary itself, where was it when you last saw it?

7 A. It was in my own home, and the investigators were able to see it

8 when they came to visit me at the home.

9 Q. When you left your home, did you leave the diary there?

10 A. I apologise, but may we go into private session and I'll tell you

11 why?

12 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

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

12

13 Page 19671 - redacted - private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 19672 - redacted - private session

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 [Open session]

21 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session now.

22 MR. NICE: May the witness have before him his own notes opened at

23 page 6455.

24 Q. And C-048, you've been told that you are free to refer to those

25 notes but in reality I think only the one sidelined in red if you wish to,

1 and if becomes more helpful effectively to follow them as you give your

2 evidence to save time do so and we can fill out details you miss after

3 you've given your evidence. But before we come to the notes themselves,

4 you wanted to say something about the Backa Palanka lobby represented at

5 the meeting in August 1992 to which we turn. Explain that lobby to us,

6 please.

7 A. When I speak about the Backa Palanka lobby, what I mean is a

8 certain lobby that was made up of individuals from the police, the secret

9 police, the information and propaganda realm of the political apparatus

10 and the crime -- criminals. And they all the worked together, harmonised

11 and dovetailed their activities and implemented the orders of the here

12 accused. And also among them was a high degree of personal solidarity,

13 and I can quote numerous examples to bear that out if you need to hear

14 them.

15 Q. Who do you identify as member of this lobby, the Backa Palanka

16 lobby?

17 A. The members of the Backa Palanka lobby were the following

18 individuals: Mihalj Kertes, Radovan Pankov, Jovica Stanisic, Milorad

19 Vucelic, Marko Kekovic, Milovan Popivoda, Milutin Popivoda,

20 Frenki Simatovic, and also Brana Crncevic who was a writer. He was close

21 to them too. And then there were criminals, Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic and

22 Darko Asanin. But Darko Asanin distanced himself a little while later

23 from these individuals to a certain extent. So if you allow me, this

24 was the link between the police, the secret police.

25 Q. Carry on. Carry on.

1 A. It was the police, the secret police, the information and

2 propaganda department of the political apparatus and criminals as well.

3 It linked all of them.

4 Q. This first meeting in August 1992 was attended by whom from that

5 lobby?

6 A. Jovica Stanisic attended as did Milorad Vucelic, Milovan Popivoda,

7 Mihalj Kertes, Goran Hadzic and Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic.

8 Q. Before we come to what was said, paragraph 99 of the summary, why

9 would you, a young man, although now running this casino, why were you

10 allowed to be present?

11 A. As I've already stressed, after some concrete operations I gained

12 their trust. They also knew that as Vesko's number one man, they could

13 place their trust in me, have confidence in me. Of course I didn't take

14 part in the discussions at the meetings, nor did I talk to them. It was

15 just my job to see that they were all served, to -- I don't want you to

16 think that I was a waiter, but I wanted to have waiters collaborate with

17 the pauses, when they had pauses that they were all served, and that they

18 were served whisky, and Chivas Regal was the make of the whisky that was

19 most often served.

20 Q. And were you ever given advice, and if so by whom and to what

21 effect about whether you should talk about what you heard at these

22 meetings?

23 A. The -- first of all, Veselin Vukotic and Milovan Popivoda told me

24 in a well-intentioned form that I shouldn't speak about this at all. It

25 never entered my head actually, because I knew that that same man

1 Veselin Vukotic two years ago had killed Andrija Lakonic, somebody he had

2 grown up with. So I could have imagined how easy it would have been for

3 him to kill me had I started to talk about this.

4 Q. Back to paragraph 83 of the summary and what you --

5 JUDGE KWON: Microphone.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone please, Mr. Nice.

7 MR. NICE: Thank you.

8 Q. Back to paragraph 83 of the summary on page 16. Witness C-048,

9 tell us, please, what was said. Take your own course. If you read from

10 or are guided by the notes that we have of course also in translation,

11 please remember that it's easy when reading from something to read much

12 faster than you speak and therefore it's difficult to go at a speed that

13 is acceptable to the interpreters. So take your own course but tell us,

14 please, what was said at the meeting.

15 A. This was an informal meeting. When I say "informal," there were

16 no minutes taken, but it had concrete and clear-cut goals and intentions

17 and it discussed concrete issues.

18 Jovica Stanisic started to talk first. He said that he had just

19 come back from the boss, and the word "boss" referred to the accused here

20 quite clearly. And he said that on -- at the London conference

21 forthcoming there, would be mention, and I quote as he said, "Our

22 territory is in the Republic of Serbian Krajina." And this referred to

23 the occupied territories of the Republic of Croatia.

24 Mihalj Kertes said he was going to do everything to clean

25 out -- that a lot of Ustashas had already gone. And Jovica Stanisic

1 emphasised that this was essential for negotiating positions to be adopted

2 at the forthcoming London conference. So that with the policy a fait

3 accompli, these territories should be conjoined with the Republic of

4 Serbia. Jovica Stanisic then told Mihalj Kertes that he should work in as

5 subtle a manner as possible to avoid any human casualties and that he was

6 to proceed by first intimidating people in a certain region, a few people

7 to begin with to instil fear in them and then the others would follow

8 suit.

9 He underlined the difference between the methods that were to be

10 applied in Vojvodina and the methods in eastern Croatia, that is to say,

11 the UNPA zone as they were officially called. And he also said that they

12 should leave no traces behind.

13 He also told him about the -- that on the territory of Serbia,

14 family homes should not be blown up.

15 Mihalj Kertes's answer was that he should maintain constant

16 cooperation with Frenki Simatovic, and he also mentioned the liquidation

17 of an old man in Hrtkovci at the end of June 1992 in a negative context,

18 as an example of what should not be done.

19 And on that occasion, I also heard that the object of the policy

20 being pursued, that is to say to use a fait accompli to effect territorial

21 domination, but mention was also made of the other parts of the so-called

22 Republic of Serbian Krajina and the context of negotiations can be held in

23 that respect and that the eastern regions would "always be ours," as they

24 put it. Milorad Vucelic said in addition to the general political phrases

25 that he used that propaganda was patriotic and he worked in the sphere of

1 information to promote it and he also said and I apologise for having to

2 say this, the scum like my former kum, Mile Isakov are always around.

3 Let's me explain that to Your Honours. Mile Isakov was the president of

4 the independent association of journalists of Vojvodina at that time.

5 Jovica Stanisic also said --

6 JUDGE MAY: In order for us to take this in it would be sensible

7 to break it up. It's very difficult to take in a narrative of this sort

8 that simply flows along. Perhaps if you would break it down it would

9 assist.

10 MR. NICE: I'm certainly happy to do that and it may be that the

11 witness, I know the handwriting on the document is not -- it's his

12 handwriting so you can follow it. The one that's marked in colour is a

13 little faint. You've also got the original there for him. What I'm going

14 to do on Your Honours' page 5 of the notes, I think we've covered

15 everything up until about ten lines from the end and we then covered most

16 of that that the witness was becoming more free in style. And so I'll go

17 back and ask the witness.

18 Q. Please, C-048, you were dealing with what Kertes said that they

19 should be in constant contact with Frenki, and you then said that he said

20 how the accused had said that such -- no. I beg your pardon. Said that

21 liquidation were is not to be carried out in Serbia. Just tell us who

22 said liquidations were not to be carried out.

23 A. Yes, Jovica Stanisic said that. While Kertes replied to Jovica

24 before that that he was in constant contact with Frenki.

25 Q. Very well. Then you've mentioned propaganda?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Who said anything about propaganda as opposed to liquidations?

3 A. Milorad Vucelic talked about propaganda because he was the person

4 in charge of propaganda as well as the director of the national

5 television. He was talking about patriotic propaganda, that he was doing

6 everything in the informational sphere. And then he mentioned, as he

7 said, and I apologise to the Court, "Scum such as my cousin Mile Isakov

8 are always around."

9 Q. Pausing there. You mentioned reference to the eastern provinces

10 and how they should be dealt with.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Overall and look at your note, please, because you've got it there

13 in front of you, was reference made to Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem and

14 Baranja, it's in shorthand I think in the original, and then just tell us

15 please the next sentence what was said and refer to a passage in quotation

16 marks if it's appropriate and tell us who said that.

17 A. When we're talking about the eastern regions, I'm thinking of the

18 area that was officially called Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western

19 Srem, and that is the eastern region of the Republic of Croatia.

20 Q. And looking at your notes, just tell us exactly who said what

21 about how those areas must be cleansed from Ustasha?

22 A. Jovica Stanisic began first. He said that he had been to see the

23 boss, as he put it, and that at the London conference there would be

24 discussion of, I quote, our --

25 Q. If you'd look please at your own notes. It's obviously not

1 entirely easy to find it but I'll do my best. Immediately after a passage

2 where you refer to the incident in Hrtkovci at the end of June 1992. If

3 you find that passage, keep your finger on it and if you follow me through

4 your own notes we'll deal with things in an orderly way. Can you find

5 that note?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Perhaps you would be good enough then to go to the next sentence

8 which deals with -- well, the end of that sentence deals with Vojvodina,

9 intimidation, and propaganda. Go to the next sentence which begins he

10 said that the Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem and Baranja must be cleansed

11 from the Ustashas. Tell us who was speaking and what was said.

12 A. Jovica Stanisic said that, stressing the methods of activities in

13 eastern Croatia and in Vojvodina itself. He said that the so-called

14 Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem should be cleansed of the

15 Ustashas and then the Croats may ask to get that region as much as they

16 can, but they would never get it.

17 Also, it was mentioned, as I also said at the beginning of my

18 testimony, that in the border region of Vojvodina, a stable Serbian

19 majority must be formed with resilient Serbs as they put it and this is

20 something that I also heard from Milovan Popivoda at our second meeting.

21 Q. Stay with the first meeting. Keep your finger on the notes if

22 you'd be so good. Was it at this stage that Vucelic said something about

23 a patriotic mission? And just look at the next sentence and tell us what

24 it was he said.

25 A. Yes. Vucelic said that we were all on a great patriotic mission,

1 that we have to create a strong Serbian state with as few hostile elements

2 as possible, that he is doing everything in his power in the information

3 sphere, that he believes that the propaganda on RTS was patriotic. And

4 then I quote, "Scum like my former kum, Mile Isakov are always around."

5 Q. Keeping your finger on the notes, was it Milovan Popivoda who you

6 next recall joining the discussion, and if so, top of our page 6 in the

7 English version, what was it that was said?

8 A. Milovan Popivoda joined the discussion, and he said that a network

9 of intelligence centres was formed in the region he called Eastern

10 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem and that he was monitoring those

11 intelligence centres. That was the first time that I heard directly from

12 his mouth that he was practically the real chief of the intelligence

13 services of the so-called Republika Srpska Krajina in the eastern part.

14 Q. Do your notes go on to record an intervention or an observation by

15 Jovica Stanisic next?

16 A. Yes. Jovica told him that the boss said that they should not

17 worry about money because there always has to be money for the needs of

18 the service and for such things.

19 Q. Was there discussion about Milan Panic? If so, to what effect?

20 A. Yes. They talked about him. The Federal Prime Minister at the

21 time. They said that the accused here, Slobodan Milosevic, regretted

22 nominating him to the post of prime minister, and they said that the

23 objective of the accused here, Slobodan Milosevic, in connection with

24 appointing Milan Panic was for him through his connections with the US

25 administration should act for the abolishment of the sanctions, and he

1 believed that Milan Panic would not really interfere much in the actual

2 running of the affairs, but it had turned out differently, that

3 Milan Panic did not agree as a person of integrity to be a puppet. And

4 they said that he would very soon be removed from his post.

5 Q. Did there come a time when Hadzic left the meeting, and did

6 Stanisic ask Kertes something at that stage?

7 A. Yes. Goran Hadzic went to the toilet, and Jovica Stanisic asked

8 Kertes, "Are you and Frenki keeping this one under control?" To which

9 Kertes replied that he shouldn't worry. And Jovica said, "Good. Good. I

10 don't really want to think that he's really the president."

11 Q. The next meeting --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

13 MR. NICE: Thank you.

14 Q. The next meeting, I think, was held in September 1992 that you can

15 help us with; is that right? And again recorded in your notes.

16 A. Yes. The same people were present. This time Frenki Simatovic

17 was also there, as well as Radovan Pankov. I just want to emphasise

18 Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic was always present at these meetings.

19 Q. We'll follow the same routine if this is helpful to the Chamber.

20 Keep your finger really on the note so that you can go through it in the

21 same orderly way that we can follow it in our translations of your

22 handwritten notes.

23 I take it this meeting was also at the club -- at the casino,

24 rather.

25 A. Yes. Yes.

1 Q. And did it start off with reference to the removal of

2 Mihalj Kertes from a particular position?

3 A. Yes. Mihalj Kertes, in the course of the London conference, was

4 dismissed from his post as deputy of the federal Minister for Internal

5 Affairs upon the instructions of Milan Panic. And this was done because

6 of the ethnic cleansing that he had committed. This was an official

7 decision by Milan Panic and it was given as the reason for his decision.

8 They criticised this decision by Milan Panic. And in a way they kind of

9 joked with Mihalj Kertes. They were on good terms with him and they were

10 kidding him that he was now unemployed and so on. They said that Milan

11 Panic was a traitor, that his activities should be prevented and so on.

12 But also they said that luckily they were not being asked to do anything.

13 Q. Did Stanisic then speak to Frenki? If so, what did he say?

14 A. Yes. Jovica Stanisic addressed Frenki by saying, "The boss told

15 me today to step up the actions in Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem

16 because I heard that the Croats would try to enter Krajina by force by

17 November 1st. He said that UNPROFOR was there but we also have to be

18 ready so nothing surprises us there. And then Frenki replied, "Jovica,

19 don't worry. Everything is under control."

20 Q. Did Jovica Stanisic speak again to Frenki?

21 A. Yes. He told him clearly to quiet down his guys and make that

22 Pera Divljak talk less. What can I tell you when it has even reached my

23 ears, referring to the already mentioned Petar Divljakovic from the Red

24 Berets who stuck out because of his brutality and during his leave while

25 under the influence of narcotics and alcohol he used to say all kinds of

1 things. Frenki said, "don't worry, I'll handle that. But you need to

2 understand that they're young fellows, and without them we wouldn't be

3 able to achieve anything." So he said that in order to balance out the

4 situation and to defend those young men a little bit to which

5 Jovica Stanisic told him, "All right. I do understand that, but still you

6 should take care of it." And he said that in that context. Also, that he

7 shouldn't worry about any financial or material resources.

8 Q. Did the conversation return to Milan Panic?

9 A. Yes. They --

10 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Conversation with one of the

11 Popivodas? I think you better tell us from your notes which of the

12 brothers it is. It may not be clear.

13 On your account it's only Milovan who was present, is it?

14 A. Yes, yes, of course.

15 Q. Keeping your finger on the notes --

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. One moment. That's the end of -- that's the end of really this

18 conversation unless the witness has been triggered by reading his notes to

19 remember anything else material that he hasn't yet told us about. Is

20 there anything else that you can remember of this conversation beyond what

21 you've already told us that's material?

22 A. As far as I have been able to follow my own testimony, I think

23 that so far I have said everything that needed to be said. Popivoda was

24 there, but he didn't really participate in the conversation so much so

25 that I would remember it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. And perhaps you ought to tell us this: In what part of the club

2 and if you can remember in what part of the day did these two meetings

3 take place? First the first meeting. What part of the club? What part

4 of the day?

5 A. The part of the club that was marked private. So it was a part of

6 the restaurant. And it was early afternoon, between 12.00 and 1.00 p.m..

7 The reason why the meeting was held in that section was quite ordinary.

8 It was summertime, so it was the most comfortable area to sit, because at

9 that time of the day, the sun does not hit that part of the premises.

10 Q. That, I think, was the first meeting. What about the time and

11 place of the second meeting?

12 A. The second meeting was held at the same place at a similar time.

13 It was in mid-September in 1992.

14 Q. We come to the -- Your Honour, we come to the third meeting. It

15 can be found at the handwritten notes for the accused 6451, and in the

16 English version it's page 8 of 12.

17 Witness C-048, was there a meeting in March 1993 that you can

18 recall?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Where and at what time of the day?

21 A. The Royal club, and the time of day was around noon.

22 Q. Who attended?

23 A. The accused here, Slobodan Milosevic, Milorad Vucelic,

24 Radovan Pankov, Mihalj Kertes, Jovica Stanisic, Milovan Popivoda,

25 Marko Kekovic, Veselin Vukotic was there the entire time. I was there

1 also in the same role that I had at the already mentioned two previous

2 meetings.

3 Q. From where had those attending this meeting come as you understood

4 it?

5 A. Not only did I understand it, but I saw it because from the place

6 where Veselin Vukotic and I were before that, we could see that clearly.

7 The named persons came from the provincial board of the Socialist Party of

8 Serbia where the accused here was on a working visit.

9 Milorad Vucelic, two or three days before that, told Vesko that he

10 would see if he could bring the boss over. Of course he wasn't able to

11 promise that because nobody could force or order the accused here to go

12 and -- go anywhere. But still, Milorad managed to do it.

13 Q. Using the same procedure, please, with your, as it were, finger

14 literally or mentally on the appropriate part of the page, which in the

15 version that's got numbers on it is the page that starts 6462, and the

16 passage begins to the effect of "After they'd seated themselves, Pankov

17 said." Can you then read out -- or not read out, tell us what happened at

18 the beginning of the meeting when Pankov spoke.

19 A. Yes. Radovan Pankov was the first to speak, which was normal

20 because at that time, Radovan Pankov was the number one man of

21 Slobodan Milosevic for Vojvodina. Radovan Pankov with a large degree of

22 humility said, "Well, boss, as I told you, the situation is under

23 control." The accused replied, "Very, very well, Raso. I just want you

24 to know that this is a very sensitive area. There are many minority

25 groups here and plenty of hostile elements amongst them."

1 Q. What happened next? Who spoke next?

2 A. After that, the accused here looked in the direction of

3 Jovica Stanisic and asked him about the situation in Eastern Slavonia and

4 Baranja, to which Jovica Stanisic replied that everything was going

5 according to plan, that the terrain has been cleansed of Croats and the

6 security situation on the field -- on the ground was stable, to which the

7 accused here said, "Very well. So we have completed the main part of the

8 job. Carry on like that, but in a subtle way," and with a certain amount

9 of pleasure he said, "Well, I'm really looking forward to how the Croats

10 would ask for the Krajina as now where the majority of the population now

11 are Serbs."

12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter missed the last sentence of the

13 witness.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Jovica Stanisic just shook his head

15 and said, "Yes, yes. Very well."

16 MR. NICE:

17 Q. The interpreters missed the last part of what you were saying, so

18 can you go back to your notes and pick it up from the accused saying,

19 "Well, we've completed the main part of the job," and go through your

20 notes fairly slowly.

21 A. Yes. I'll just continue. He said, "Just continue working like

22 that, but in a subtle way." And then he said with a certain amount of

23 pleasure, "And now, Bre [phoen], I would like to see how the Croats would

24 ask for the Krajina from me when the Serbs are living there now, just the

25 Serbs are living there now, especially Eastern Slavonia and Baranja. And

1 as for the rest, we can still talk about it."

2 Q. And was it at that stage that Stanisic shook his head and said,

3 "yes, yes," or, "Very well"?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Next, to whom did the accused next speak?

6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, there's apparently another sitting in here

7 at half past two, so we have to bear that in mind. No doubt we can sit

8 for a few minutes longer.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

10 MR. NICE: This passage of evidence lasts another four pages, so

11 I'll see how far we can go.

12 Q. Who did the accused next address?

13 A. He addressed Mihalj Kertes with his nickname, which was Bracika.

14 He told him, "Bracika, you and Frenki just continue in this manner.

15 You've done well so far. And as far as the material equipment is

16 concerned, just ask Jovica for everything you need and Milovan is there

17 also if you need him." And he was thinking of Milovan Popivoda. Then he

18 directly asked Kertes, "Is Arkan under control?" To which he received the

19 reply, "Yes, he is." And the accused here then said, "Very well. Very

20 well. You just keep him under control. Don't let him gain control over

21 you in due course. We need people like this now, but no one should think

22 that they were more powerful than the state."

23 Q. Next thing said, please?

24 A. Then the accused here said that all kinds of pressure must be

25 maintained and a united Serbian state must be made comprising the Republic

1 of Serbia, Montenegro, Republic of Srpska, and the Republic of Srpska

2 Krajina. And that is why it was important to stand all the pressures,

3 because then the world would have to acknowledge the factual situation.

4 He continued with the explanation that the Croats who once go towards

5 Zagreb or to some European country have once found an apartment there or a

6 job, in other words have fitted into that society will no longer want to

7 return to the area where they originally came from.

8 Also, he stressed that by using Republika Srpska and the Republic

9 of Srpska Krajina, it will be easier for him to keep Montenegro under

10 control in case they started to make waves, as he put it.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

12 MR. NICE: Might that be a convenient moment?

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

14 MR. NICE: I hope the Court has got or will have access to the

15 witness lists. I can will deal with their formation probably more

16 conveniently tomorrow.

17 JUDGE MAY: Very well. It may be there are matters that have to

18 be dealt with in relation to the next witness and the form that his

19 evidence is going to take. Perhaps those responsible could look into it.

20 MR. NICE: Your Honour, we have the problem in mind. But I can

21 tell you straight away that the witness's attitude is unchanged from what

22 it was on the previous occasion.

23 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Nine o'clock

24 tomorrow morning.

25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.,

1 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 29th day of April,

2 2003, at 9.00 a.m.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25