1 Monday, 28 April 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [Pre-Trial Conference]
4 [The accused Simatovic entered court]
5 [The accused Stanisic is not present]
6 --- Upon commencing at 1.18 p.m.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Today in the absence of Judge Picard,
8 Judge David and I sit pursuant to the provisions of Rule 15 bis.
9 You will recall that the Chamber had required the registrar to
10 establish a videolink to allow the accused to follow the proceedings from
11 the UNDU were he not in a position to attend court.
12 My information is that the videolink is established. May I ask
13 the court deputy to confirm whether that is so.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, as we can see on the screens,
15 the videolink is -- it's connected, it's running, although we don't see
16 the accused.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Today, as indicated in the earlier
18 order of the Trial Chamber, we are going to hear first from Dr. Falke.
19 Dr. Falke's testimony will be heard in closed session. I want to stress
20 that this is not to be taken as meaning that the Trial Chamber no long
21 adheres to its general ruling that evidence relating to the health of the
22 accused is to be heard in public session.
23 The Chamber has issued an order relating to the registrar's
24 request that Dr. Falke's evidence be heard in closed session and that
25 order makes it quite clear what the particular circumstances are, that in
1 the Trial Chamber's view, warrants that treatment.
2 Let Dr. Falke be called, and we'll then move to closed session.
3 [Closed session]
11 Pages 890-973 redacted. Closed session.
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber is grateful for Dr. Falke's
20 testimony and the submissions of the parties. We are particularly
21 grateful for the candid manner in which the doctor gave his evidence.
22 The evidence clarified many issues relating to the accused Stanisic's
23 illness and his attendance in court.
24 In light of the evidence as a whole, and in particular the
25 evidence given by the doctor that the trial could proceed with the video
1 conference link subject to close monitoring of the health of the accused,
2 the Chamber rules that the trial will proceed with the video conference
3 link. However, the Chamber is sensitive to the evidence of the doctor
4 that the video conference link could harm the health of the accused and
5 for that reason, it will, by order, set in place a special regime for
6 monitoring and reporting on the health of the accused.
7 We will now proceed with the Pre-Trial Conference.
8 I have a number of issues to deal with -- I'm sorry, I didn't see
9 you, Mr. Knoops.
10 MR. KNOOPS: Yes.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
12 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, the Defence for Mr. Stanisic would like
13 to request the Court to reconsider an adjournment in light of the fact
14 that we will, by tomorrow, file an application under Article 20 of the
15 directive of assignment of counsel for the ICTY as adopted in the plenary
16 of June 2006 meaning that we, as Defence, cannot continue and we will ask
17 the registry with a motivated application for our withdrawal from the
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me just read what you said. You said the
20 Defence is requesting the Court to reconsider an adjournment in light of
21 the fact that we will, under Article 20 of the directive -- you will file
22 an application to withdraw.
23 Well that is no basis for us not to continue with the Pre-Trial
25 Mr. Groome.
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, what I wanted to address with the
2 Chamber is just thinking in terms of what might be prudent at this stage.
3 I was going to ask the Court and this would be just a suggestion is
4 whether it would be important to notify Mr. Stanisic before we begin with
5 the Pre-Trial Conference that we will be proceeding by video conference
6 link and to give him an opportunity to go to the video conference link --
7 video conference room now.
8 Secondly, has the Court -- I think it's important that the Court
9 state on the record that it has found that Mr. Stanisic is able to go to
10 the video conference link room and that his failure to go there is deemed
11 a waver waiver of his right to be present at the trial.
12 Those are just some suggestions about how since we are in
13 somewhat unfamiliar ground that we might make our proceeding more
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me confer with the court deputy as to
16 whether Mr. Stanisic is aware of the decision that we had made.
17 The court deputy.
18 I had assumed that he would be aware of it but perhaps that
19 assumption is wrong.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 My information is that Mr. Stanisic is not aware of the decision
22 that we have taken. I had assumed that he would be and that assumption
23 is -- has proven to be wrong. It goes without saying that he needs to
24 be informed of it and for that purpose, I'm going to adjourn for 15
25 minutes so that he can be informed.
1 We will adjourn for 15 minutes.
2 --- Recess taken at 5.42 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 6.00 p.m.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: May I ask the court deputy whether the accused
5 Stanisic has now been informed of the Trial Chamber's decision?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, Mr. Stanisic has been informed.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
8 Mr. Groome, as to the point that you made, I would have thought
9 that it followed quite clearly that the Trial Chamber's ruling was that
10 the accused Stanisic was well enough to follow and participate in the
11 proceedings by video conference link. In that decision, we were very
12 much encouraged and felt supported by the doctor's evidence that he could
13 follow and participate in the proceedings by video conference link though
14 subject to close monitoring of his health.
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I believe it is clear and I withdraw my
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: This is the Pre-Trial Conference and I start
18 first with disclosure and the translation matters.
19 Are there any disclosure matters that the parties wish to raise?
20 Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, could I just raise as a general point,
22 I've asked Mr. Gregory Townsend, the trial attorney, to take charge of
23 all disclosure matters throughout the trial so that is one of his primary
24 areas of responsibility, so I will ask him to address the Court. I will
25 ask him to address the court I think he has some information about what
1 may be outstanding, if anything --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Townsend.
3 MR. TOWNSEND: Thank you, Your Honours. With regard to
4 translations and disclosure, we'd like to report that with regard to Rule
5 65, proposed exhibits, Your Honour, there's approximately 80 outstanding
6 translations, most of those 79 seem to be B/C/S into English. With
7 regard to statements under Rule 66, most of those translations have been
9 Our audit shows none outstanding. And we're making great
10 progress with the help of CLSS and DVU and that's the status report.
11 Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. As for the 80 outstanding, what is
13 the time estimate on that?
14 MR. TOWNSEND: We would have to confer with CLSS for that
15 information. We don't have that handy, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, please do and we need to proceed as
17 quickly as possible. Thank you very much.
18 As far as agreed facts and adjudicated facts are concerned, we
19 have the Prosecution's motion, and I am to say that the Chamber will give
20 a decision in due course on those motions.
21 I come now to the important question of the time available for
22 the Prosecution case. The Trial Chamber notes that the Prosecution
23 intends to present the evidence of 106 witnesses during an estimated 172
24 hours of examination in chief. Among these witnesses are eight witnesses
25 now listed as 92 quater witnesses. In total, the Prosecution therefore
1 is requesting 172 hours for examination in chief of 98 witnesses.
2 Another witness's evidence, namely that of Witness Number 64 of
3 the latest 65 ter witness list was admitted under Rule 92 quater in the
4 case of the Prosecutor versus Martic.
5 A number of matters which I'll deal with which will show how the
6 time may reasonably be reduced. There is one witness, an intercept
7 operator in respect of whom the Prosecutor wants his evidence to be heard
8 live so that he can authenticate and contextualise intercepts. Now, if
9 there is no dispute concerning the authenticity of these documents, there
10 would be no need to hear this witness viva voce. I'm going to ask the
11 Defence whether they are contesting the authenticity of the documents.
12 Mr. Knoops, this is Witness 40.
13 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour ...
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness 40 on the 65 ter witness list.
15 Mr. Knoops, are you in a position to say?
16 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour. At this point, we are not
17 able to make an informed decision about authenticity of those
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you should do so as quickly as possible
20 and let us know because this is quite readily a matter in which some
21 expedition could be achieved.
22 The Trial Chamber sees possibilities for further reduction of the
23 number of hours. We note in particular that several witnesses are to
24 testify as linkage witnesses. There are 42 linkage witnesses for a total
25 of 112 and a half hours for the Prosecution case in chief and we see no
1 need for such a high number of linkage witnesses.
17 In total, the estimate of these witnesses would take 35 hours.
18 Within the list of witnesses on the joint criminal enterprise and as an
19 example only, many witnesses are to be called to testify on the role of
20 Milan Martic in the alleged joint criminal enterprise, in particular, in
21 addition to the evidence of Milan Babic, 92 quater; C-058 partial 92 ter
22 is to be called to testify for six hours exclusively on Martic's role and
23 his link with the DB.
24 Moreover, the link is Martic is also supposed to be one of the
25 main issues in the testimony of M-078, partial 92 ter, three hours.
1 Slobodan Lazarevic, partial 92 ter, four hours; C-013, partial 92 bis,
2 two and a half hours; Radoslav Maksic, partial 92 ter, two and a half
3 hours, and the same issue is also touched upon in the evidence of B-050
4 who is live and is down for 7 hours. C-015, partial 92 bis, two hours
5 and Aleksandar Vasiljevic, partial 92 bis, five hours and others.
6 The examination in chief for these witnesses is expected to last
7 32 hours.
8 While recognising that the witnesses are not expected to testify
9 exclusively on the alleged link of Milan Martic with other members of the
10 joint criminal enterprise, the Chamber does see a significant amount of
11 cumulative evidence in the summaries of these witnesses.
12 Further examples of cumulative or repetitive evidence, at least
13 eight witnesses are supposed to testify, although not always exclusively,
14 on the organisation of structure of Arkan's Tigers. Another eight
15 witnesses are scheduled to testify on the topic of the takeover of Dalj
16 and crimes other than the crimes in Dalj explicitly listed in the 92 bis.
17 The Trial Chamber has also observed that many witnesses are
18 listed as partial 92 bis or 92 ter and yet many of them are still
19 expected to testify for over an hour.
20 I have had much experience with this practice which, to me,
21 defeats the purpose of 92 bis or 92 ter. It is reasonable to allow some
22 questions to clarify the evidence contained in the statement and the
23 Prosecution is strongly encouraged to limit the examination of 92 ter
24 witnesses to 30 minutes.
25 The Chamber's ruling is as follows: The Prosecution will be
1 allowed to present the evidence of 90 witnesses considering the
2 possibilities for reduction of examination in chief just mentioned, the
3 Trial Chamber finds it in the interests of justice to determine that the
4 Prosecution is to present its evidence within 130 hours. This amount
5 reflects the time available for examination in chief of the witnesses.
6 Generally, each accused will be allowed 60 per cent of the time
7 for examination in chief for its cross-examination, but applications may
8 be made for an extension of that time.
9 On the 19th of March, the Prosecution requested the Trial Chamber
10 to lift the ex parte status of certain annexes attached to several
11 motions pertaining to delayed disclosure of 16 witnesses. Neither the
12 Defence for Jovica Stanisic nor the Defence for Franko Simatovic
13 responded to this motion. In light of the fact that the material
14 relating to these witnesses has been disclosed to the Defence for both
15 accused, there is no need to maintain the ex parte status of the annexes
16 to the relevant motions.
17 The Trial Chamber therefore lifts that status in relation to the
18 documents listed in the annex to the Prosecution's motion. A decision
19 will be given in due course on the other pending motions.
20 The scheduling of witnesses, the parties are to provide a list of
21 witnesses every Thursday to the greatest extent possible with the names
22 of the witnesses they expect to call the following week. The Prosecution
23 will supplement that list with all known prior statements of the
24 witness -- of the witnesses that are relevant to the proceedings.
25 I am to say that the Chamber will make an order providing further
1 details about the scheduling of witnesses and the transmission of
2 documents from one party to the other, both in the Prosecution's case and
3 in the case for the Defence.
4 May I ask whether the Prosecution has anything to raise?
5 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, just to clarify. So with that
6 listing, Your Honour means -- when Your Honour says supplement with
7 statements, is the Chamber requesting that we provide those prior
8 statements to the Chamber or just a list of the statements? I'm unclear
9 as to exactly what you would like us to provide on Thursdays aside from
10 the of witnesses we intend to call.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: The intention that you would provide the
12 statements of the witnesses, not just the list.
13 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. There is nothing further
14 that the Prosecution wishes to raise.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, may I ask Mr. Knoops for Stanisic whether
16 he has anything to raise?
17 MR. KNOOPS: Thank you, Your Honour, nothing to raise. Thank
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: May I ask Mr. Jovanovic whether he has anything
20 to raise.
21 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. With
22 respect to the witness list, the Prosecution at this stage of the
23 proceedings will present every Thursday. I want to know whether on that
24 list, there will be documents which are to be introduced through those
25 witnesses. Will the list include the documents?
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: That will be set out in the order which the
2 Chamber will make very, very shortly. All those details will be set out.
3 But yes, it will include the documents which the Prosecution intends to
4 put to witnesses in its examination in chief, but there are other details
5 to be attended to and I would rather do that in an order.
6 MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
8 MR. GROOME: I apologise, Your Honour, there is one matter. We
9 will arrange the schedule of witnesses according to the calculations that
10 the Court has indicated with respect to cross-examination. I've
11 requested several times and the Prosecution would appreciate if either
12 Defence counsel believes that they will use less time than that allowed
13 by the Court to please advise us so we can accelerate the appearance of
14 witnesses and so we do not have any lapses of unused court time.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I ask Defence counsel to take that into
16 consideration and of course when the Defence is presenting its case, the
17 Prosecutor will also take that into account.
18 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: That concludes the Pre-Trial Conference and
20 we'll now have the opening statement.
21 Mr. Groome.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, could I ask for a short adjournment of
23 no more than 10 minutes to distribute. We have copies of the statement
24 for the interpreters, the director as well as we need to load up the
25 exhibits we wish to show the Chamber.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ten minutes.
2 --- Recess taken at 6.20 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 6.34 p.m.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Groome, your opening statement.
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, before I begin, the Prosecution will be
6 showing evidence during the course of this opening statement. That can
7 be viewed by the Chamber or by other participants in the court here today
8 by pressing the e-court button on their panels. We've also provided hard
9 copies of the slides and the documents that we will show the Court so in
10 the event that we move past them too quickly, the Court has a copy that
11 it can read at its leisure.
12 Finally, Your Honour, during the course of this trial, the
13 Prosecution will be working with a number of maps, I've given the usher a
14 set of map books now, I've asked that they be distributed and they are
15 maps that will be important and relevant to the evidence over the course
16 of this trial.
17 With that, Your Honour, the Prosecution is ready to begin.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please.
19 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, perhaps one of the most shocking
20 pieces of evidence adduced at a trial in this Tribunal is a video
21 containing images of three men and three boys shot in the back, hands
22 bound tightly with wire. Captured as they fled a fallen Srebrenica, we
23 watch them silently and with resignation walk to a spot where they will
24 be murdered one by one. We watch their captors, some mocking the six in
25 their final moments, others demonstrating a demeanor more akin to a
1 routine task. One is focused on capturing the executions on videotape.
2 Here on slide 2 is a still from that video and in it we see the
3 youngest Dino Salihovic moments before he is executed. The world
4 recoiled as the image was played repeatedly on news programmes. The day
5 will come in this trial when we will have to watch their death again, but
6 not today.
7 Today, I want to show you a different part of that video. The
8 video taken by the Scorpions on that occasion is approximately two hours
10 [Videotape played]
11 MR. GROOME: The parts of the video that I want to show you this
12 afternoon, while at first appear less shocking. Upon reflection are more
13 disturbing than the killings themselves because they reveal that the
14 perpetrators of these crimes were not rogue paramilitaries, not a band of
15 common criminals, no, the perpetrators of these crimes and the other
16 crimes charged in this indictment were a well-organised and equipped
17 group, part of the units of the Serbian DB, the State Security Service of
18 the Republic of Serbia
19 Members of a unit that was well trained, well-equipped, well
20 paid, they had everything that they needed including a licence to clear
21 the land of unwanted peoples, a licence to commit murder.
22 What is now known about the special units of the Serbian DB has
23 left many Serbs wondering how it was possible that some of the most
24 grievous crimes committed during the war were committed in their name, by
25 men paid by the government, men in a unit administered by the State
1 Security Service of the ministry of internal affairs of Serbia
2 specifically, by Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
3 Your Honours, this case in its simplest terms is an examination
4 of the conduct of two of the people with primary responsibility for
5 organising, training, funding, equipping, and directing members of units
6 of the Serbian DB to perpetrate grievous crimes on the territory of
8 securing for them a land free from Croats and Muslims.
9 Not too long ago, a Serb journalist posed a question in reference
10 to the special units of the Serbian DB. "How did it happen that a group
11 of armed and dangerous men dared to shape the destiny of an entire
13 Can I draw your attention to the video in slide number 4. Here
14 in 1997, Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic celebrate their work forgetting
15 the suffering they occasioned while they pose with current and former
16 members of the special units. The proud founders of that group of armed
17 and dangerous men that so dared to shape the destiny of an entire nation.
18 The tensions that fuelled the break-up of Yugoslavia and the
19 terrible interethnic violence that spared no one are still a subject of
20 scholarly and popular debate, a debate that lies outside the task that
21 the Trial Chamber begins today.
22 The Trial Chamber is not called upon to adjudicate these issues,
23 and I will spend little time on them here.
24 The focus of this trial is upon Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic
25 and the role they played in the commission of crimes in Croatia and
2 fundamental demographic changes on the territories of the former
4 It is only right that we begin this task by spending a few
5 moments to consider who these two men were at the outset. What were the
6 legal duties and what were the boundaries of their authority?
7 Both Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic were employees of the
8 Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia
9 this ministry throughout this opening by its Serbian acronym, M-U-P or
11 The Serbian MUP's mandate is articulated in the Serbian law on
12 ministries which is reproduced here in relevant part on slide number 6.
13 Its legal authority is similar to other interior ministries in other
14 developed democratic societies.
15 In essence, it was responsible for the protection of citizens and
16 residents of the country and the regulation of borders, passports and
17 identity documents. In short, the Ministry of the Internal Affairs, the
18 Serbian MUP was responsible for the safety and security of persons inside
19 of Republic of Serbia
20 One of the administrative divisions of the MUP was the State
21 Security Service, the part of the MUP headed by Jovica Stanisic. This
22 section was more commonly known by its Serbian acronym, the DB.
23 Slide number 7 shows Article 3 of the DB's rules, the article
24 which defines its mandate as one of collecting information, data, and
25 knowledge. Information of general and counter intelligence, information
1 concerning extremism and terrorism. And while it also included the
2 collection of information about "forms of threats to the national and
3 cultural-historical identity of Serbs who live outside of the Republic"
4 of Serbia
5 organisation was entitled to do, collect information.
6 Let me now speak directly about Mr. Stanisic and his place in the
7 Ministry of Internal Affairs. Slide 8 contains a brief summary of his
8 professional appointments.
9 Jovica Stanisic would join the MUP in 1975. His first position
10 there would be in the State Security Service, the DB.
11 Although throughout 1991, Mr. Stanisic was nominally the deputy
12 head of the DB, the evidence in this case will show that during this
13 period, he was the de facto head of that organisation. And on the 31st
14 of December, 1991, with the intervention of Slobodan Milosevic, he
15 assumed the position of head or chief of the DB.
16 As you can see from slide number 9, Mr. Stanisic had the
17 responsibility of implementing the mandate of the Serbian DB.
18 I would also like to point out the penultimate paragraph which
19 states, "Organises the execution of tasks and affairs within the
20 competence of the division in conditions of emergency, imminent threat of
21 war and war."
22 Although there was conflict in Croatia and Bosnia
23 1995, Serbia
24 war and thus this paragraph never became effective during the period of
25 this indictment.
1 Let me now turn your attention to the career of Franko Simatovic.
2 Slide number 10 is a brief summary of his resume. He would join
3 the DB three years after Stanisic in 1978. He worked in the section
4 responsible for gathering intelligence.
5 As you can see from this description of Mr. Simatovic's job on
6 slide number 11, he was primarily charged with implementing projects to
7 gather intelligence, data, and information about threats to Serbia
8 While the mandate extends to collecting information about
9 perceived threats to ethnic Serbs living outside of Serbia, it does not
10 provide for any forcible intervention outside the country.
11 As I have said, the internal laws of Serbia are similar to other
12 modern democratic states, laws designed to circumscribe the activities of
13 a governmental organ with precision and maintain a balance of power.
14 They are there to ensure that the authority of the state is not
15 misused. While ideologically, Stanisic and Simatovic identified with
16 Slobodan Milosevic and his goals for the Serb people, the laws of Serbia
17 prevented them from deploying their personnel as a fighting force outside
19 When Croatia
20 presence of the Yugoslav army there was no longer considered legitimate
21 by the international community.
22 It became necessary for Milosevic to create a paramilitary force
23 that could be deployed covertly outside Serbia and outside its laws. A
24 paramilitary force that could be used in combat as well as in the
25 commission of the crimes necessary to implement Milosevic's goal of
1 creating ethnically pure areas in Croatia and Bosnia
2 Service already engaged in covert information gathering was a logical
3 place to create such a special unit.
4 If the state is going to engage in criminal conduct, it will use
5 its he secret service to engage in that conduct.
6 Your Honours, throughout the course of this opening, the
7 Prosecution will introduce you to some of the people who are central to
8 this case. Each of the people we speak about in this way is a core
9 member of the joint criminal enterprise with Mr. Stanisic and
10 Mr. Simatovic or was a prominent member of the units of the Serbian DB.
11 One of the people the Chamber will hear a great deal about is
12 Slobodan Milosevic. It has always been the position of the Office of the
13 Prosecutor that he was the central driving force behind this joint
14 criminal enterprise.
15 The Prosecution will tender in this trial -- will tender evidence
16 in this trial showing the close working relationship that the two accused
17 had with Mr. Milosevic.
18 In October 1998 when Stanisic was dismissed by Milosevic, he gave
19 a public statement which can be seen here on slide number 12. In that
20 statement, Stanisic states that he executed his duties within his
21 constitutional and legal powers. The Chamber's adjudication of this
22 indictment will test the accuracy of this statement.
23 He also made clear that he had aligned him testify with
24 President Milosevic in the early 1990s an arrangement that a careful
25 analysis of Serbia
1 of authority in that country.
2 Mihajl Kertes like Jovica Stanisic was born in Backa Palanka. He
3 was the head of the security department in one of Serbia's largest banks
4 the Dafiment bank and secured the financing, or in part secured the
5 financing for Jovica Stanisic to create the special units of the Serbian
7 I would like to play an intercept for you in slide 13 we hear
8 Kertes and Karadzic talk about the problems Mr. Stanisic is having with
9 his direct lawful superior, a man by the name of Mr. Janackovic
10 suggesting that Milosevic's trust in Janackovic was misplaced.
11 [Intercept played]
12 MR. GROOME: We hear Kertes saying that Milosevic has given both
13 him and Stanisic carte blanche. I would like to show you a clip from a
14 video we will refer several times in this opening, the video was taken
15 during an awards ceremony at the Radoslav Kostic centre in Kula Serbia
16 May of 1997. Many of the people who are behind the formation of the
17 special units Serbian DB and supported its activities in Croatia an
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina attended.
19 During this particular clip, Jovica Stanisic is giving Milosevic
20 a tour of the facility and handing out awards to those who played a
21 prominent role in the unit.
22 [Videotape played]
23 MR. GROOME: As you saw, Mr. Stanisic gives both Milosevic and
24 Kertes awards on behalf of the special units of the Serbian DB.
25 The Prosecution's case is broader than simply the relationship
1 between Slobodan Milosevic, Mihalj Kertes, Jovica Stanisic, and
2 Franko Simatovic. The Prosecution will establish in this trial that the
3 crimes charged in the indictment were perpetrated as part of a collective
4 criminal effort, as part of a joint criminal enterprise.
5 It is the Prosecution's case that Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic
6 were willing members in a core group of persons who shared the intent to
7 remove large populations of non-Serbs, mostly Muslims and Croats, from
8 their homes and land by force, by perpetrating the crimes of murder and
10 In some cases, their lands were targeted because they lay in
11 areas in which Serbs were a majority; in other cases, their lands were
12 targeted because the land was necessary to bridge disconnected
13 concentrations of Serbs; in other cases, their land was targeted simply
14 because it was considered a necessary acquisition in order to secure the
15 success of the overall plan.
16 The crimes perpetrated during the conflict are of a magnitude and
17 of a scale that challenge our ability to comprehend them in the detail we
18 need in the context of a criminal trial.
19 It can be equally difficult to conceptualize the large group of
20 people who must necessarily work with a common purpose towards
21 realisation of those crimes.
22 Each person in this collective, having a different contribution
23 to make, having a different position and role to play in the overall
25 I submit this diagram on slide on number 15 as one way of
1 conceptualizing this core group of perpetrators.
2 While it is certainly an oversimplification of the joint criminal
3 enterprise, it is a starting point as we progress through the trial the
4 Court will become aware of the nuances in the relationships between these
5 core members that I cannot capture in a simple diagram.
6 The vertical columns represent going from left to right, core
7 members of the joint criminal enterprise who were Croatian Serbs, in the
8 middle column, Serbs in Serbia
9 Bosnian Serbs.
10 Looking horizontally at the diagram, the top row represents those
11 core members who were in the military, the middle row, those who held
12 governmental positions, were political figures, or whose contribution is
13 best characterised as political, and the bottom row those participants
14 who worked in the respective MUPs of the three regions.
15 As you can see, Mr. Stanisic appears in both the political and
16 the Ministry of Internal Affairs boxes. This is because his role in the
17 joint criminal enterprise extended beyond his job in the State Security
18 Service as you will hear on this next intercept I will play. In it, his
19 actions are in some cases best characterised as political.
20 In the intercept on slide 16, you can hear Jovica Stanisic and
21 Radovan Karadzic discussing Milan Babic, a prominent leader of the
22 Croatian Serbs in the Krajina.
23 [Intercept played]
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Groome, it's 7.00, and I think we have to
1 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: And we resume tomorrow at 1.15 p.m.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.
4 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 29th of April,
5 2008, at 1.15 p.m.