Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1826

 1                           Tuesday, 7 July 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused Simatovic entered court]

 4                           [The accused Stanisic not present]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.29 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Due to the little time some Judges in this Chamber

 7     have to meet between the morning and the afternoon sessions, we have

 8     unfortunately a late start in this case.

 9             And, Madam Registrar, this case is ... ?

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  This is case

11     number IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and

12     Franko Simatovic.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

14             Mr. Knoops, I was informed that you wanted to raise a matter,

15     procedural matter?

16             MR. KNOOPS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I think it was still confusing in

17     the medical documents regarding the waiver because we received an absence

18     from court due illness document in which the right to waive to be present

19     in court is not actually crossed by the defendant --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. KNOOPS:  -- while the non-attendance document under

22     question 4, the English version does say that Mr. Stanisic is willing to

23     waive his right to attend court in person.  It's my understanding that

24     Mr. Stanisic is not waiving his right to attend court in person, and I

25     personally will go tomorrow afternoon again to the UN Detention Unit to

Page 1827

 1     speak about these two documents because I believe there might be

 2     confusion in these two documents for the defendant.  But it's my --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, the most important thing, this is of course a

 4     formality filled in.  Most important for us to know is whether he waives

 5     his right or not; he has never done that until now.  If there would be

 6     any change in his attitude, then we would certainly hear from you,

 7     Mr. Knoops.

 8             MR. KNOOPS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Another matter, we also received -- apart from these

10     two documents, we received the medical report of today.

11             Have the parties any need to put any questions to Dr. Eekhof?

12             No need to put questions to Dr. Eekhof.  I would, however.

13             Could we have a videolink with ...

14             Good afternoon.  Dr. Eekhof, can you -- I see that the microphone

15     is switched off.

16             MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] [Microphone not activated]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We can see your mouth moving, but we don't hear you.

18     Apparently the microphone is not on.

19             MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] And now?  Can you hear me now?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I can hear you now.

21             MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] Good afternoon.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon.  Thank you for being stand-by.  I

23     have a very, very short question for you.  Under paragraph 2 of today's

24     report you state:

25             "During my visit of Mr. Stanisic today, his mental state of mind

Page 1828

 1     was still agitated and depressed, although less than last Friday ..."

 2             Now, it's my recollection that your last report was of yesterday,

 3     which was a Monday.  Is there any reason why you referred to Friday

 4     rather than to yesterday?

 5             MR. EEKHOF:  [Via videolink] Your Honour, there's a simple

 6     reason.  I visit him daily, but I only report once weekly as asked by the

 7     Chamber.  And at the moments where he has to appear in Court, I give an

 8     expert report.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  But yesterday we received a report, isn't it?

10             MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] Yes, I gave a report yesterday too.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and was he still agitated and depressed,

12     although less than last Monday as well, or is the situation the same

13     as --

14             MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] No, it's -- it is -- I referred to

15     last Friday because on Thursday there was --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] -- an incident which upset him and

18     agitated him.  I saw him on Friday.  He was very agitated and very active

19     even in his agitation.  Yesterday he was still very agitated.  Today he

20     seems to rest a bit in the situation.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for this further information.  Dr. Eekhof,

22     thank you for remaining stand-by.  The Chamber will determine whether or

23     not to proceed.  Thank you very much.

24             MR. EEKHOF: [Via videolink] You're welcome.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  We can close the videolink.

Page 1829

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber decides on the basis of the report of

 3     this morning, Dr. Eekhof's additional information, that we can proceed in

 4     the absence of Mr. Stanisic.

 5             Next matter -- perhaps before the witness enters the courtroom,

 6     yesterday we ended in P18 with an invitation to the Prosecution, an

 7     invitation to both parties.  Any results?

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, we did have the opportunity to speak

 9     with the Defence, both Defence, concerning this exhibit.  It's the

10     Prosecution's position that the entire exhibit is relevant.  It does

11     contain statements of an alleged co-perpetrator of the joint criminal

12     enterprise and discusses the activities and conversations with other

13     alleged members of the joint criminal enterprise during the relevant

14     period of indictment between 1991 and 1995.  We believe that because of

15     this relevance the entire exhibit should be admitted.  With that being

16     said, we did have the opportunity to speak with both Defence.  We are not

17     able at this time, I believe it's fair to say, to agree to the admission

18     of the entire exhibit.  We are willing to continue our conversations with

19     the Defence to see if a substantial portion can be agreed upon, and then

20     we would await any future instructions or decisions by the Chamber as to

21     whether or not the Chamber would like a further submission from the

22     Prosecution on this or would like to decide the matter based on its

23     review of the material.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Knoops, is -- what Mr. Weber said, does that

Page 1830

 1     reflect the actual situation, that is, that you started discussions,

 2     there was no agreement on the matter, and may I take it then under those

 3     circumstances that the Stanisic Defence takes the same position as it

 4     took yesterday in relation to admission of the video in its entirety?

 5             MR. KNOOPS:  Yes, Your Honour.  We reviewed yesterday the

 6     transcripts, the 42-page transcripts, and we still believe there are many

 7     portions which were not dealt by the Prosecution in chief with this

 8     witness.  So which are, in other words, outside the scope of the

 9     testimony of this witness.  But having said so, we are willing to sit

10     down with the Prosecution to look into the document again and find ways

11     to come to an agreement on certain portions.  Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

13             Mr. Jovanovic, any further submissions in respect of this

14     document?

15             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the time being

16     the same reasons I pointed out yesterday; however, in my conversation

17     with the OTP we came close to a possible solution.  The proposal that I

18     submitted to the OTP is now expecting for me to submit in a written form

19     together with the identification of some of the documents that I wish to

20     tender and I wish for them to be admitted upon mutual agreement.  I

21     believe that we have made some progress, but at the time -- for the time

22     being I can repeat my -- yesterday's position.  It is possible that we

23     might reach an agreement, and I'll try and identify as soon as possible

24     the document that I would like to tender for admission, and I will inform

25     the OTP thereof as soon as possible.

Page 1831

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.

 2             The Chamber would like to assist the parties in where apparently

 3     no agreement yet has been reached and where apparently the positions are

 4     still a little bit apart.  And I'd like to give some guidance on behalf

 5     of the Chamber to the parties.

 6             First a general observation.  In general any kind of

 7     documents - and that would include videos - should be tendered in a

 8     meaningful way in court through witnesses who are able to comment on

 9     them.  This allows for a proper contextualisation, without which the

10     Chamber is left to determine the relevance and probative value primarily

11     on the basis of the document alone.  These considerations are especially

12     pertinent for documents of a technical nature for which the relevance and

13     probative value is not immediately apparent.  So the general rule is

14     through a witness.

15             As far as tendering evidence from the bar table is concerned,

16     this often does not allow for proper contextualisation, as we have it

17     when admitted through a witness, which leaves the Chamber to determine

18     the material's relevance and probative value on the basis of the proposed

19     evidence alone.  And in order to facilitate the admission process - and

20     I'm now talking about admission of evidence from the bar table - the

21     Chamber requests under those circumstances a joint submission of the

22     parties whenever a document, and that would include a video or one

23     document or a set of documents, is tendered without being presented

24     through -- to a witness, the tendering party should then submit a

25     document containing a short description of each exhibit as well as its

Page 1832

 1     relevance to the indictment and its probative value if that's not

 2     immediately obvious from the description itself.  In case of bulky

 3     exhibits with particularly relevant portions, a reference to those

 4     portions is needed.

 5             You could ask, Why a joint submission?  Well, the Chamber would

 6     also like to be informed in the joint submission of any comments and

 7     objections that the opposing party may have with regard to each of the

 8     tendered exhibits.  And the tendering party should provide the Chamber

 9     with the disputed exhibits.

10             You see, a more or less structured way of tendering into evidence

11     material which is not or not directly related to a witness through which

12     that evidence is presented.  This is general guidance.  I'll now give you

13     a very short provisional analysis of what we found yesterday.  And of

14     course the Chamber has had now an opportunity to read the transcripts.

15             What we see, as a matter of fact, is that in the first

16     portion - and I think this goes until approximately page 19 - the focus

17     seems to be mainly on Eastern Slavonia; whereas on page 19 we move to a

18     totally different area, we move to Bosnia, Zvornik, relationship between

19     Mr. Karadzic, Mr. Milosevic, we see a lot of things that are passing by.

20     Now, that first portion, that is apparently a portion on which this

21     witness can comment.  To what extent exactly he can comment and where he

22     cannot comment anymore is -- of course we could not deal with that on a

23     line-by-line basis; we will take a rather general approach.  What we also

24     see in this first portion, and that's repeated in the second portion here

25     and there as well, is relatively irrelevant portions such as the

Page 1833

 1     background of the interviewed person, when he was -- whether he has ever

 2     spent some time in jail, some rather personal dealings and evaluation of

 3     the importance of his own position in all kind of matters.

 4             Therefore, in the first portion we see some material which is

 5     relatively irrelevant.  We see a certain portion where in this interview

 6     matters are dealt with on which the witness could comment.  That would

 7     therefore be a portion which would be appropriately tendered through this

 8     witness.  And then in the second part we find information on which, at

 9     least from what we've heard now, we hardly could expect the witness to

10     give any comment on it.  It seems not to be very meaningful to tender

11     that through this witness.  Now, of course, then Prosecution could seek

12     to tender that from the bar table, but whether that's appropriately done

13     here or whether it would be more appropriate to tender this through a

14     witness who could tell us about what happened in Bosnia, who could tell

15     us about what happened in Zvornik, and therefore provide the context

16     which is needed in the preferred way to receive this evidence, that is,

17     through a witness.  So at this moment the Chamber does not finally

18     express its views on whether -- well, let's say on from page 19, whether

19     it would accept it if tendered from the bar table or whether it would

20     insist on it being tendered through a witness.  That is the result of a

21     provisional analysis of this document.

22             Now, what the Chamber would like the parties to do is that the

23     Prosecution further will look at that portion of the video which is most

24     likely to be considered appropriately admitted through this witness and

25     then to see whether we need all of that or whether there's some portions

Page 1834

 1     which seem to be irrelevant.  If an agreement could be reached on that

 2     with the Defence, that would be appreciated by the Chamber, it would

 3     assist the Chamber; if not, we'll hear what reduced video you'll tender,

 4     and the Chamber will decide whether it, whether all of it or part of it,

 5     will be admitted into evidence.

 6             Mr. Weber, is that clear to you?

 7             MR. WEBER:  Yes.  Thank you very much for the Chamber's guidance.

 8     If it's okay with the Chamber, we would be happy to discuss that first

 9     portion during the first recess and report back to the Chamber later

10     today.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             Then the - if there's no other matter at this moment to be

13     discussed - the witness could be brought into the courtroom again.

14                           [The witness takes the stand]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  From your answer, I take it that you could hear me

18     in a language you understand.

19             Mr. Savic, I would like to remind you that you're still bound by

20     the solemn declaration you gave yesterday at the beginning of your

21     testimony, and you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Jordash.  Mr. Jordash

22     is counsel for Mr. Stanisic.

23             Mr. Jordash, you may proceed.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25                           WITNESS:  BORIVOJE SAVIC [Resumed]

Page 1835

 1                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 2                           Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:

 3        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Savic.

 4        A.   Good afternoon.

 5        Q.   Let me take you straight to the 10th of June, 1990.  From what

 6     you've told us you were instrumental in setting up the SDS board in

 7     Vukovar; is that right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And by August of 1990, am I correct that Mercep was the HDZ

10     president in Vukovar?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And --

13        A.   I apologise, not the president of the HDZ but the secretary of

14     the Secretariat of National Defence, that's what its name was.

15        Q.   And there was, is this right, a violent take-over of the

16     National Defence staff?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Just briefly, what was that about?

19        A.   I wouldn't be able to tell you much because we did not

20     participate in power.  We were newly established party after the

21     elections, and we did not hold any responsibility for any of the

22     activities that were taking place within the power in that

23     administration.

24        Q.   So basically the HDZ were dominating all the positions, is that

25     correct, in Vukovar?

Page 1836

 1        A.   The HDZ took 16 per cent of the votes in the elections that took

 2     place in April, and then there was the second round in early May.

 3     However, after the elections the state started functioning as an HDZ

 4     state.  So all the activities that were taking place at the time went

 5     along that line.

 6        Q.   So officials who were not part of that party were being forced to

 7     leave their positions; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes, yes.

 9        Q.   And basically nationalisation was on the rise?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And the fragmentation between the Croatians and the Serbians was

12     rising and widening; is that correct?

13        A.   If you're referring to us locals, then that would be to a lesser

14     extent because us locals -- we tried to maintain good relations.  The

15     pressure came from the side of Vinkovci and Osijek.  We as locals were

16     rather close.  For example, a lot of my friends were HDZ members and

17     people who were candidates were also HDZ members, and that fact did not

18     have any influence on our relations.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, may I just briefly intervene.  I am not

20     a native English speaker.  Therefore, I'd like to be assured that we --

21     that I understand your language in the same way as you intend to speak

22     it.  You used the word "Croatians and Serbians."  Now, from what I

23     learned now, but I could be wrong, is that if we are referring to someone

24     on the basis of his ethnicity not on the basis of to what state he

25     belongs, that we then talk about Serbs, whereas about anything Serbian

Page 1837

 1     would be in relation to the state of Serbia.  You used the word

 2     "Serbians" where I thought that you would, in my understanding, wanted to

 3     refer to Serbs, that is, to ethnical background of human beings.  Now, if

 4     I'm wrong, I'd like to be corrected at this moment in my understanding of

 5     the English.  If I'm not wrong, you're invited to use the words in the

 6     same way, that is, Croats for Croat ethnic background, Croatians for

 7     people holding Croatian nationality; Serb for someone Serbian ethnic

 8     background, and Serbian for linked to the state of Serbia.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  It's -- I think the simple answer to that is that

10     there isn't a simple answer, that the terms can be used interchangeably.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If that's the case, then we always have to

12     clarify what we are meaning if it's interchangeably used.  Perhaps not

13     spend more time on it at this moment and try to find a way in court or

14     out of court, perhaps with the assistance of our interpreters or CLSS, so

15     to find a language that I always understand your words in the way you

16     pronounce them.

17             MR. JORDASH:  I'll endeavour to make myself clearer.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

19             MR. JORDASH:

20        Q.   Am I correct, Mr. Savic, that by the summer of 1990 the members

21     of the HDZ were arming themselves in the Vukovar --

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   -- region.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And this was visible for those who lived in that region, it was

Page 1838

 1     fairly public?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   This arming was of criminals and the unemployed, amongst others;

 4     is that right?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 6             MR. WEBER: [Interpretation] Everybody who --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Objection to the form of the question.  It's vague to

 9     ask the witness broadly his own context of what he thinks criminals

10     are --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's clear.  The witness may answer the

12     question.  The objection is overruled.  If you need any further

13     clarification as what the witness understands from these terms, it can be

14     asked from him.

15             Could you please answer the question which was:

16             "This arming was of criminals and the unemployed, amongst

17     others," whether that is a correct statement.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All those who adopted new political

19     views and joined them were armed, irrespective of their profession and

20     the activities they engaged in at the time.

21             MR. JORDASH:

22        Q.   And this arming also took place amongst those of Serb ethnicity?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And in the summer of 1990 this arming was taking place through a

25     black market in weapons; is that correct?

Page 1839

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And this situation went on for several months, is that correct,

 3     arming through the black market?

 4        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 5        Q.   And what was this black market?  Where were the weapons coming

 6     from?  And how were they getting to the various ethnic groups?

 7        A.   I said that we had established our party and that our intention

 8     was to buffer all those things.  I don't know how the weapons came,

 9     through what channels, but I took my distance from the weapons.  We never

10     wanted to fight fire with fire.  We had other arguments on our side that

11     we wanted to use.

12        Q.   Well, was this arming the kind of arming which led to old hunting

13     rifles falling into the wrong hands?  Was it that kind of black market?

14        A.   There was all sorts, but I don't know any details.  I never had

15     the time to look into any details.  Whatever I did I did without taking

16     weapons in my hands, only with my head on my shoulders, nothing else.  I

17     was never interested in weapons.

18        Q.   Mr. Witness, I am not accusing you of anything; if I do, then

19     I'll make it clear.  I'm just trying to find out what you know.

20             Could I suggest to you that the weapons that you say you saw with

21     Ilija Kojic were obtained by him through that black market?  Could you

22     give us your comment on that.

23        A.   It's just a supposition.  I can suppose that.  However, in my

24     statement what I really wanted to say was that I wanted to ask Ilija not

25     to use our people and not to put them in a difficult position as to how

Page 1840

 1     much weapons he was going to take and distribute, I wasn't interested in

 2     that.  I apologise to you.  I'm really taking up your time because I

 3     can't tell you anything specific about the arming because that was

 4     something that I wasn't involved in.  I didn't want to burden myself with

 5     it.  My style of work was completely different.  It was completely

 6     public, transparent, and civilised, and that part of my work could

 7     perhaps be of assistance to you.

 8        Q.   Well, at that moment I'm interested in the arming, but you've

 9     confirmed - is this right - that Kojic could have obtained those weapons

10     through the black market?  You say it's a supposition but you suppose

11     that that could be right.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Because when you went to his flat - if what you say is

14     right - you saw old weapons at his apartment; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes, yes, correct.

16        Q.   Old weapons which were -- no, let me start this again.

17             How many did you see approximately?

18        A.   Five to six perhaps.

19        Q.   So this was five to six old weapons at a flat owned by Kojic?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And yesterday you -- you gave evidence that Kojic had suggested

22     to you that he'd received the weapons from Stanisic.  Do you recall that

23     evidence?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Could you explain why a moment ago you were willing to accept

Page 1841

 1     that he could have accept -- got them from the black market, if indeed

 2     what you said yesterday was true?

 3        A.   Once again I will repeat that I was not focused on weapons at

 4     all.

 5        Q.   Could I suggest to you, Mr. Witness, that Ilija Kojic never said

 6     to you that he'd received them from Stanisic.

 7        A.   You could.

 8        Q.   Well, I do, and I suggest that that was a fabrication on your

 9     part, a late fabrication.

10        A.   There is no need for me to make up things.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Let me ask if the witness could be given, please, a

12     copy of his first statement dated the 16th of -- 16th to 17th of

13     December, 2002, incorporating I think also 3rd, 4th, and 5th of February,

14     ERN number 011G -- sorry, 0119-1905.

15             I'm presuming that will come up on the screen.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  You would like to have it on the screen --

17             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, I'm sorry, I beg your pardon.  I'm just

18     getting used to the facilities.

19        Q.   I think we'll need you to have a look at the B/C/S version.

20             Now, Mr. Witness, I just want you to have a look at the front

21     sheet there on the left side of the screen and just - if the screen could

22     go up to reveal the signature on the bottom left - could you have a look

23     at that.  Is that your signature?  Do you recognise that signature?

24        A.   Yes, it is my signature.

25        Q.   And you see the date of birth at the top.  Is that your date of

Page 1842

 1     birth, the 2nd of February, 1949?

 2        A.   Yes, yes.

 3        Q.   And --

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Perhaps the -- we could turn to the first page of

 5     the B/C/S, please.  Perhaps the next page.

 6        Q.   I just want you, Mr. Witness, to have a look and check just

 7     quickly that you recognise this statement as your own.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Next page, please, of the B/C/S.

 9        Q.   Does that look familiar, Mr. Witness?

10        A.   Yes.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honours, I don't know if you wish me to prove

12     the statement more than I have.  I'm in Your Honours' hands, or I can

13     take him through very quickly the whole statement if it's the practice of

14     the Court.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

16             MR. WEBER:  We have no objection.

17             MR. JORDASH:

18        Q.   Okay, Mr. -- Mr. Witness, I want you to turn to -- in the English

19     version it's page 6.

20             MR. JORDASH:  And so what I want, if I can, is for the B/C/S

21     version to be turned to around page 6, and I'm looking at the bottom of

22     that where the sentence -- the paragraph that begins:  "Around mid-1990

23     the distribution of weapons had already started ..."

24        Q.   Can you indicate when you've found that, Mr. Witness.

25        A.   I don't think it's on this page.

Page 1843

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Let's go the next page, I think.

 2        Q.   Is that it, two-thirds of the way down the page with the "1990"?

 3        A.   I'm looking at this now.

 4        Q.   Okay --

 5        A.   Yes, yes, I see it.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Let's just read through that paragraph quickly.

 7             "Around mid-1990 the distribution of weapons had already started.

 8     At first it was done under the cloak of the SDS party, but naturally that

 9     was done by the Serbian DB.  For example, in Vukovar the man in charge

10     was certain Ilija Kojic who was a police officer.  I came to this

11     information quite accidentally.  One day Kojic came to look for me to my

12     house in Vukovar, but since he did not find me, I visited him later in

13     his apartment."

14             Is that, Mr. Savic, what you told the Prosecution?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Reading on.

17             "When I went there he asked me whether I needed any weapons.

18     Naturally I rejected, since I was against weapons and I knew that the

19     distribution of weapons was just going to bring trouble for the, let's

20     call them, 'short-sighted people.'  I also warned Kojic, since he was

21     obviously connected to the weapons, not to connect the party with this

22     distribution.  Kojic was not a member of the SDS ..."

23             Is that what you told the Prosecution, Mr. Savic?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And the bit I'm particularly interested in is the following

Page 1844

 1     sentence.

 2             "Since in Vukovar I was one of the most" -- sorry, "one of the

 3     prominent people who meant something, I was against violence.  I conclude

 4     that Kojic must have had connections with the DB, since one cannot buy

 5     weapons at the market and there had to be -- there had to have been

 6     coordination with an institution."

 7             Is that what you told the Prosecution?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   So at that stage you were presuming DB connection; is that

10     correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And only later - I don't think we need to turn to it - but only

13     later in your visits to the Prosecution of the 11th February, 2008, did

14     you suddenly recall, if I can put it neutrally like that, that in fact

15     Mr. Kojic --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

17             MR. WEBER:  I apologise for interrupting Mr. Jordash.  But just

18     so we have a clear record, the date of the proofing note is the 11th of

19     February, 2008; however, it is indicated in the first line that the

20     interview was on the 20th of September, 2007.

21             Sorry to interrupt.

22             MR. JORDASH:  I beg your pardon, sorry.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

24             MR. JORDASH:

25        Q.   So basically five years after your first statement you meet the

Page 1845

 1     Prosecution, and then you recall that in fact Kojic had told you that it

 2     was Stanisic who had given you these five -- sorry, given him these five

 3     old weapons; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.  Can I explain?

 5        Q.   Please.

 6        A.   The first statement when I gave it, it was quite general.  The

 7     topic wasn't really known.  We talked and it lasted for five hours, a

 8     couple -- for five days, a couple of hours each day, and the statement

 9     was given in the form that you can see in front of you.  As for other

10     interviews, they were all centred on a certain topic so that essentially

11     what was added had not been made up.  Simply, if one concentrated better,

12     if one put in effort, then one could be more certain in conveying what

13     happened on a certain occasion.  That is my explanation.

14        Q.   Thank you for that explanation.  Let's move on.

15             Now, let's stay with this statement, the first statement we've

16     just been looking at.  You -- actually, before we move on to that next

17     bit, your statement with the section we've just read, your general

18     statement, as you term it, noted that the supply of weapons was first

19     done through the SDS party.  Is that correct?  If you remember the first

20     part of the paragraph:  "At first it was done under the cloak of the SDS

21     party ..."

22        A.   Yes, yes.  That's how it was said, that the weapons were

23     distributed under the aegis of SDS.

24        Q.   Right.  And you were one of the key members of the SDS party at

25     that time?  Thank you.

Page 1846

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Now --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, I'm -- I'm not quite certain that we

 4     have no confusion here.  We have two elements in that sentence.  At first

 5     SDS and then -- but naturally that was done by the Serbian DB.  Now, I

 6     took it from your question that you suggested to the witness that in the

 7     beginning it was the SDS, and that at a later stage it was that the

 8     weapons came from the -- that it was done by the Serbian DB.  That was

 9     the suggestion in your question.  The witness more or less confirmed what

10     I find in his statement, and therefore I'd like to seek clarification.

11             Was there -- was this involvement of the Serbian DB, had it been

12     there on from the beginning, or did it start under the responsibility of

13     the SDS, and only at a later stage that it developed in such a way that

14     it actually became the Serbian DB?  Or was the Serbian DB involved right

15     from the beginning?  Which of the two was it?

16             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, I will try to explain it in briefest

17     possible terms.  When the HDZ came to power, all policemen who were Serbs

18     were talked by the Serbian DB to leave police force, to not accept the

19     chequer-board flag, to not accept new employment.  And the HDZ was

20     pressing to remove as many people from the police force as possible.  We

21     had meetings with them trying to talk them into remaining, not leaving

22     police force because it was important for them to remain there -- oh, I

23     apologise, I spoke too much.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you there.  I would like to focus on the

25     distribution of weapons, whether on from the beginning the Serbian DB was

Page 1847

 1     involved in the background, although it may have looked as if it was the

 2     SDS, or whether only at a later stage where the SDS had started on its

 3     own that the Serbian DB became involved.  That's the question, which of

 4     the two situations -- descriptions reflects the actual situation?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So all the policemen who were left

 6     jobless or were leaving police force went to Serbia.  I don't know what

 7     their fate was from then on.  I suppose that one of their activities had

 8     to do with weapons.  They were involved with weapons.  I gave you an

 9     example of a situation where I was personally involved because I was

10     asked by Kojic and things happened as I have explained to you.  I have

11     always tried to explain that the weapons were of less importance to us.

12     We tried to avoid it as much as possible in our work so the --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you again.  Your statement was:

14             "Around mid-1990 the distribution of weapons had already started.

15     At first it was done under the cloak of the SDS party, but naturally that

16     was done by the Serbian DB ..."

17             Now, was it on from the beginning done by the Serbian DB, or had

18     there been a period in which the Serbian DB was not involved and where it

19     actually was the SDS itself?  Which of the two?  And I don't need -- I

20     just want to understand the line I read in your statement.  Could you

21     tell us?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really did not follow the

23     mechanisms and how that arrived.  It arrived via people who were in the

24     police, and it was done in the way as described in the statement.

25     Everything relating to the weapons -- you have to understand that it was

Page 1848

 1     a new system, new system of power, new system in every aspect, and they

 2     were accepting everyone into police force.  They were giving them

 3     weapons.  And whatever we did was termed as an anti-terrorist activity,

 4     and whatever you did fell within some kind of a regulation.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you again.  Who are "they" where you

 6     said "they were accepting everyone into the police force.  They were

 7     giving them weapons"?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Authorities, new Croatian

 9     authorities which came to power after the elections.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, I still have got no answer to my

11     question, my question being where you said that the distribution of

12     weapons had started but -- although it looked as if it was the SDS, it

13     naturally was done by the Serbian DB.  Was that on from the beginning of

14     the distribution of weapons, or was it initially the SDS involved and not

15     the Serbian DB in the background?  Or had the Serbian DB been involved

16     all the time?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the very beginning.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.

19             MR. JORDASH:

20        Q.   How do you know that, Mr. Witness?  Are you not speculating on

21     the basis that there were police officers leaving their jobs and they, in

22     some cases, had weapons?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Do you know the distinction between the public service and the

25     state service?  The DB on the one hand and the public service on the

Page 1849

 1     other, do you know the distinction?

 2        A.   I wouldn't be able to define it.

 3        Q.   So what you're --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, again your last question:

 5             "Are you not speculating on the basis that there were police

 6     officers leaving their jobs, and they, in some cases, had weapons?"

 7             The answer is:  Yes.

 8             Yes to what?  Are you not speculating?

 9             Yes, I'm not speculating.

10             Or was it:  Yes, I am speculating on the basis of the reason you

11     gave.  Or in some cases they had weapons?

12             To what is the yes?  But that is a result of the way in which you

13     put the question to the witness.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Let me try to clarify things.

16        Q.   This was a period, as you've told us, when Serbian police

17     officers were losing their jobs in the Vukovar region; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   This was a period when police officers who were of Serbian

20     ethnicity were leaving their jobs and in some cases taking their weapons

21     with them; is that correct?

22        A.   I mean, I can't be sure.  I don't know.  I simply don't know how

23     the hand-over was done.  It could be the way you described.

24        Q.   Okay.  So wasn't the arming of civilians, Serbians and -- Serbs,

25     I should say, and Croats, done, as you've told us, through the black

Page 1850

 1     market in the first place?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Objection, compound.  If we could please deal with

 4     this separately, the Croats as opposed to the Serbs, because I think

 5     there's been separate testimony in terms of the arming of those two

 6     populations.  And he's given different answers to his knowledge base.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Matters become confused.  Is it that Serb police

 8     officers kept their weapons and handed them over; and if so, to whom?  Or

 9     is it that weapons came from any other source, black market, DB, you name

10     it, and then were -- so we have now in our questions and answers

11     apparently two distinct suggestions of flows of weapons going in one way

12     or the other.  We really have to clarify that by very precise questions.

13             MR. JORDASH:

14        Q.   What is your evidence of weapons supplied by the DB?  Is it your

15     visit to Kojic?

16        A.   Yes, for me, yes.

17        Q.   Thank you.  I'll leave it there for now.  We'll come back to this

18     subject, but for now that will be fine.

19             I want to ask you now about your visit to JNA generals.  Am I

20     correct that you had a meeting with Nenezic, retired colonel-general

21     during, 1990?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Am I correct that you met also at that same meeting Jovo Kokot a

24     partisan general from Western Slavonia?

25        A.   As a matter of fact, those were not meetings.  Those were my

Page 1851

 1     regular visits to him at his home.  His door was always open to me, and I

 2     can tell you what the reasons for those meetings were.

 3        Q.   Well, I'm going to ask you some specific questions.  Were those

 4     generals the link with the JNA in the field at that time, the field being

 5     in Slavonia?

 6        A.   General Nenezic hails from a village between Vinkovci and Osijek,

 7     from Podrinje.  He was certainly very close to his homeland and the --

 8     and his activities and his presence was tied with the activities, but my

 9     reasons were not of that nature.  He indeed was connected to some people,

10     and he did things that he could and that he did, of course.

11        Q.   And you also visited in 1990, having received a call,

12     Milan Karadzic; is that right?

13        A.   Milun.

14        Q.   Milun.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And he took you to see some JNA leaders in the region; is that

17     correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And you were not in favour of what they were discussing or

20     deciding to do; is that correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   They were discussing what?

23        A.   Karadzic invited me to a meeting.  He told me where the meeting

24     would be taking place, and he didn't mention anything about the subject.

25     When I arrived there and when I saw the location and when I asked about

Page 1852

 1     the reasons, he said we were meeting with the military, and it was just

 2     talking about current situation, current problems, and that was a subject

 3     of every single meeting that took place at the time.

 4        Q.   Well, what were the generals discussing in relation to arming of

 5     a population?

 6        A.   The subject was very general.  The situation was so and so, it

 7     was even worse than it is portrayed; we are monitoring the situation; we

 8     can resolve things within the next 24 hours.  This was what was said.

 9     And then when it came to question time, and since I knew that they were

10     in daily communication with them, and I had a question which I put very

11     loud and clear.  My question was what the role of the army would be in

12     the future war which was uncertain.  I alerted them to the fact that I

13     would be speaking at the end of the meeting and that he we should forget

14     everything because nothing was true of what was said.  What would be the

15     role of the army in the future war, and who would protect the Serbs in

16     Croatia?  Because they were the ones who always tried to portrayed their

17     role as people who were protecting the Serbs.

18             The response to that was as follows.  They think that there won't

19     be any war.  And if there is a war, the military would be the buffer

20     zone.  And it was such a big word that they obviously took pride in using

21     it, and they asked me whether I was happy with the answer.  I said not

22     only was I not happy, I was embittered because I perceived that as being

23     considered an idiot if they give me such an answer.  And who is it who

24     told them that in a state where the army is supposed to be protecting the

25     internal organisation and the borders of a state, that in such a state

Page 1853

 1     the military of that state could be playing the role of the

 2     United Nations.

 3        Q.   And you accept this, don't you, that the JNA in fact took sides?

 4     By 1991 at least the JNA were fighting on behalf of the Serbs; is that

 5     correct?

 6        A.   No.  It wouldn't be a good explanation if the military was to

 7     protect the Serbs that had a majority in terms of the population of

 8     Yugoslavia.  It was only the top military echelons, the leadership of the

 9     military, who could have provided a reasoning or an explanation to that

10     effect.

11        Q.   Okay.  Let me ask you about a different subject for the moment.

12     Let me take you to when you were arrested.  Was that early April of 1991?

13        A.   On the 31st of March, yes.

14        Q.   And am I correct that, as a result of that arrest, and the news

15     spread amongst the Serbs living in the area?

16        A.   First of all, it was not an arrest.  This was how it was

17     portrayed in the media to raise tensions.  The action that took place in

18     Plitvice - and Mr. Goran Hadzic and I spent the night there - that action

19     took place in the early morning hours, and it was organised by the

20     Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia.  At 5.00 I was woken

21     up --

22        Q.   Can I stop you.  I want a specific -- time is short, so I'm just

23     trying to focus you and me.

24             As a result of the experience in which the Croatians detained you

25     and Hadzic, passions in the area were inflamed, especially in

Page 1854

 1     Borovo Selo; is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And local civilian Serbians -- Serbs started setting up

 4     barricades?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And arming themselves with black market weapons; is that correct?

 7        A.   Yes.  Let's suppose so, yes.

 8        Q.   Old hunting rifles and the like?

 9        A.   It really depended on what people believed was an appropriate

10     thing to do.

11        Q.   And it was around this time that the Seselj's men came into the

12     region; is that correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, may I take you back.  You asked:  "Old

15     hunting rifles and the like?"

16             The answer was:  "It really depended on what people believed was

17     an appropriate thing to do."

18             I have great difficulties in understanding this to be an answer

19     to what your question was, unless you'd say, Forget about the hunting

20     rifles, let's move on.  Otherwise you should seek clarification.

21             MR. JORDASH:

22        Q.   Did you hear His Honour's comment, Mr. Witness?  Some -- let me

23     put it -- let me break it down.  Some people armed themselves with old

24     hunting rifles and black market weapons; is that correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 1855

 1        Q.   Some people went to the barricades generally in fear but unarmed?

 2        A.   Whatever you say about weapons, all I can offer is my

 3     speculations.  For 24 hours I was in the car travelling around Western

 4     Slavonia or in that direction, in the direction of Baranja.  I had

 5     back-to-back meetings.  Do you really think that in a situation like that

 6     I was capable of giving weapons a single thought?  The topic of armament

 7     was not on the agenda of any of our meetings, and there was no single

 8     meeting that I attended where I would allow anybody to raise that issue.

 9     If anybody did the meeting would be abruptly stopped.  My main goal was

10     Zagreb, talking to people in Zagreb, and establishing relations with

11     Zagreb.  Everything else paled against that.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Moving away from where we were.  Mr. Jordash asked

13     you whether the Serbs started setting up barricades.  Your answer was

14     yes.  Then he asked you about arming.  Do you have any knowledge of the

15     arms that were available to those who were at the barricades?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I learned about the

17     barricades three days after I got home from the prison hospital in

18     Zagreb -- Zagreb.  I was --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me immediately stop you there.  So the answer is

20     you don't have any personal knowledge about the weapons people had at the

21     barricades, even you have only hearsay evidence on whether the Serbs

22     starting setting up these barricades.  You heard about it afterwards.

23     That clarifies to some extent the matter.

24             Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.

25             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 1856

 1        Q.   Let me ask you about something in your statement which you, I

 2     think, have told the Prosecution.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  If I could please have ERN number, this is the

 4     first statement again, ERN number 0119-1905 is what we looked at a moment

 5     ago.  If you could find the paragraph with Kojic in it, I want the

 6     paragraph immediately below.  If you look -- have you found it?  It

 7     starts off with:  "In Western Slavonia ..."

 8        A.   Western Slavonia, yes.

 9        Q.   "In Western Slavonia there were many military emissaries.  For

10     example, one of them was Jovo Kokot, a partisan general, who always used

11     to travel in somebody else's company, like, for example, Jevrem Cokic who

12     was the commander of the JNA Bjelovar garrison."

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   You told the Prosecution that?

15        A.   Yes, or some other military personnel who were active in the

16     field.

17        Q.   Right.  The Bjelovar garrison, where was that?

18        A.   The Bjelovar garrison is in the city of Bjelovar, in the

19     direction of Zagreb, as you're leaving the city of Bjelovar on the

20     right-hand side of the road.

21        Q.   Thank you.  This was a large garrison with thousands of JNA --

22        A.   Yes, yes.

23        Q.   And let me read on.

24             "Since I did not agree with the cooperation, with the

25     distribution of the weapons, but still people were keeping me informed,

Page 1857

 1     for example, I found out that at the end of February 1991 leaders of SDS

 2     were going to Belgrade to a meeting about organisation 1st of March,

 3     1991, which was Pakrac's attack date ..."

 4             Now, I'm interested in --

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   -- your connection in this paragraph between Kokot, Cokic, and

 7     the cooperation and cooperation and distribution of weapons.  Were you

 8     making that connection there?

 9        A.   I had nothing whatsoever to do with General Kokot.  General Kokot

10     was an old partisan general, and he moved within his privileged circles

11     for years.  And we -- I had nothing whatsoever to do with him until he

12     appeared at that meeting at Tolek [phoen] house.

13        Q.   You did have connections with Jovo Kokot, you've already

14     confirmed that to the Court.  Can you -- is that right?

15        A.   At that meeting, yes.  At the meeting, but the meeting had been

16     arranged by Milun Karadzic, so Jovo Kokot was not somebody I had any

17     previous connections with.

18        Q.   Am I correct that Kokot and other JNA generals within the SBWS

19     region were responsible for distributing weapons around this time, around

20     the time of 1991?

21        A.   It is possible -- well, I suppose that's how it was.  They were

22     military.  There was some other more responsible people who came from

23     Belgrade as well.

24        Q.   Well, let's just deal with JNA for the moment.  Let's deal with

25     the paragraph -- go two paragraphs down, please.

Page 1858

 1             "The person I had spoken to" -- we're dealing with -- I'm going

 2     to read the paragraph now.

 3             "The person I had spoken in Belgrade to was Veljko Dzakula, and

 4     to my surprise he was not against such initiatives."

 5             This, Mr. Witness, was the initiative of arming the population;

 6     am I right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And, reading on --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

10             MR. WEBER:  Objection.  That's misstating the statement.  That is

11     immediate reference to the paragraph before it, which does not describe

12     that --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, as a matter of fact, are you objecting against

14     the question or against the answer?

15             MR. WEBER:  Objection to the characterisation in the question

16     because it mis-characterises the witness's statement.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just -- if there's any objection against the

18     way in which it is reflected, whether that's in a summary form or whether

19     in its original, you're invited to verify that on the basis of a literal

20     quote.

21             MR. JORDASH:  I will, Your Honours.

22        Q.   Let's go to the paragraph below before I deal with the paragraph

23     I'm really interested in.  It starts off with:

24             "Dzakula and myself were talking about Pakrac, and he said that

25     the time had come for the people to raise rebellion.  And the only thing

Page 1859

 1     they needed, it was weapons."

 2             And that was --

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   That was the initiative that you disapproved of that Dzakula was

 5     taking.

 6        A.   Let me just explain.  Veljko Dzakula was the president of the

 7     regional board of the Serbian Democratic Party.  And every two or three

 8     days we met; none of our meetings were chance meetings.  Veljko Dzakula

 9     had gone to Belgrade, and I learnt about that, to arrange an action - and

10     this word "action" is a term that you can interpret any way - an action

11     in Pakrac.  And he did it of his own will.  He decided to do that without

12     any previous consultations with anybody else.

13        Q.   Let me ask you about the paragraph above that.  You met Dzakula

14     in Belgrade.  That's what --

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And if we look halfway through that paragraph it says this:

17             "When we met in Belgrade I remained with Dzakula until 4.00 in

18     the morning.  I was trying to convince Dzakula that no cooperation should

19     be made in the distribution of weapons and in the cooperation with army

20     and not to take part into the distribution of weapons ..."

21             Is that correct?  Is that what you told the Prosecution?

22        A.   Let me just explain.  I arrived in Belgrade, and I called

23     Dzakula's wife who resided in Belgrade.  Dzakula wasn't there, and I told

24     her that I was staying at Metropol hotel, and whenever he returned up at

25     home that he should head for Metropol hotel.  That was the way things

Page 1860

 1     happened.  There was a continuity there.

 2        Q.   Mr. Witness, let me just try to focus you and me.  Were you

 3     warning or trying to warn Dzakula not to cooperate, firstly, in the

 4     distribution of weapons?

 5        A.   That came after when he arrived -- or rather, we started talking

 6     first, and then he informed me that he had agreed for Pakrac to vote for

 7     its unification with the municipality of Knin, that the police would vote

 8     for its unification with the MUP and that people would raise.  And he

 9     also said, We will chase Ustasha from the MUP in their underpants.  That

10     was his explanation.  And then after that came our conversation that you

11     were referring to.

12        Q.   Well, that -- thank you for the explanation, but you -- can you

13     try to answer this simply.  Were you against -- you were against

14     Dzakula's initiative to distribute weapons, yes or no?

15        A.   Yes, yes, yes.

16        Q.   And you were against his cooperation with the JNA because --

17        A.   Absolutely.

18        Q.   And because that collaboration was about the distribution of

19     weapons in part?

20        A.   Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, I'm looking at the clock.  Would this

22     be a suitable moment for a break?

23             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have a break of 25 minutes.  We'll resume at

25     20 minutes past 4.00.

Page 1861

 1                           --- Recess taken at 3.55 p.m.

 2                           --- On resuming at 4.27 p.m.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, you may proceed.

 4             Did you make any arrangements with Mr. Jovanovic about how to

 5     divide the time available to you?

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, I said I was going to try to finish within an

 7     hour, and my learned friend said he would try to finish by the end of the

 8     day.  I think that was the best we'd got which came to finishing by the

 9     end of the day --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but -- but you've taken more than an hour -- at

11     least if you look at clock time, it's different from net time.  But let's

12     not waste further time and proceed --

13             MR. JORDASH:  I'm going to go as quick as I can, for sure.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

15             MR. JORDASH:

16        Q.   Mr. Witness, let's try to focus and deal with the questions

17     shortly if you can.  Just finishing off the issue about the arming by the

18     JNA, did Dzakula inform you that the plan was that the army would provide

19     the weapons and they would proceed to then seize territory between

20     Hungary and the motorway?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And this was early 1991, is that correct, when you were informed

23     of this?  Sorry, did you say yes or no?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Thank you.  And are you able to confirm this, that in the Vukovar

Page 1862

 1     region in 1991 the JNA had approximately 15.000 soldiers?

 2        A.   Let's assume so if that's the information you have.  It's just my

 3     assumption.  I don't know this for a fact.  However, the figure is high.

 4        Q.   The number of JNA soldiers in the region was in the thousands in

 5     1991?

 6        A.   Vukovar had very small barracks, and therefore the number is very

 7     high.  It could just be a combination of the Osijek and Vukovar

 8     garrisons, the two together.

 9        Q.   And are you able to confirm this that available to the JNA at

10     that time was automatic weapons, machine-guns; is that right?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Rocket- and hand-held launchers?

13        A.   We had quartermasters, that is to say, cooks --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters didn't hear the last sentence.

15             MR. JORDASH:

16        Q.   Could you repeat the last sentence, Mr. Witness, please.

17        A.   In Vukovar we had quartermasters, cooks, and other auxiliary

18     personnel.  There was no combat unit there.  So this is why I know

19     nothing about how JNA units were armed.

20        Q.   Okay.  I might have misled you earlier with the 15.000.  Was

21     there approximately 6.000 in the Vukovar region?  Is that more likely

22     to -- 6.000 JNA soldiers?

23        A.   I don't think so.  The barracks is really small, up to 1500 max.

24        Q.   Let me ask you this then:  Are you -- do you have any information

25     on the volunteers who came into the region?  Am I correct that they were

Page 1863

 1     subordinated to the JNA or the TO in the region?

 2        A.   In the period of time that we're dealing with, there were no

 3     volunteers.  Once the war broke out the volunteers appeared, and they

 4     came both under Territorial Defence and under JNA depending on what

 5     interpretation people gave.

 6        Q.   Okay.  So let's break this down a bit.  In -- the volunteers

 7     started coming to the region at what point?  Was this in 1991?

 8        A.   The first volunteers appeared in Borovo Selo.  As for the rest of

 9     the area, it was blocked, and there were no changes there.  They appeared

10     during combat which took place in late 1991.

11        Q.   And were these the SRS volunteers who appeared in Borovo Selo,

12     Seselj's men?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And am I correct that in fact the reason that they came into the

15     region was that the TOs in the region were making official requests

16     directly to the SRS in Belgrade, asking for volunteers?

17        A.   I don't know about mechanisms that were used to arrange for the

18     presence of volunteers.

19        Q.   So you don't know why or how the SRS volunteers came into the

20     region?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   I suppose you know why, but you don't know as to who made them or

23     sent them to Borovo Selo?

24        A.   I can't even tell you why.

25        Q.   Let me just see if I can trigger your memory.

Page 1864

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Can I have a look, please, on the screen at

 2     Exhibit 3906 -- ERN B/C/S 0116-9412.

 3        Q.   Would you have a look at this exhibit, please, Mr. Witness, and

 4     have a quick read and see if you've seen it before or it reminds you of

 5     anything you recall.

 6        A.   I see the document for the first time.  I can see that it

 7     involves Podravska Slatina, which is Western Slavonia.  It was sent to

 8     the Radical Party, Ohridska Street, the 12th of October, 1991.  That's

 9     October.

10        Q.   Well, I'm suggesting, Mr. Witness, that this is the way in which

11     SRS volunteers came into the region because military, TO, JNA leaders

12     in --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  If you want to object to the question, then I'd

14     rather first hear the question.

15             And could the witness wait to answer the question once it has

16     been completed.

17             MR. JORDASH:

18        Q.   I'm suggesting that the way in which SRS volunteers came into the

19     region was that local JNA or TO leaders, commanders, in - I want to keep

20     it simple - local JNA or TO commanders made official requests directly to

21     SRS Belgrade office, the war office in Belgrade; is that right?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

23             MR. WEBER:  Objection, foundation.  If we could have some

24     specificity as to what region we are talking about.  For the past page we

25     have just been talking about a general region.  The witness has now

Page 1865

 1     identified a separate area in that document.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, I think it would be appropriate to lay

 3     some foundation, because the witness earlier said that he had no idea

 4     about the mechanisms, and you'd say you would trigger, not to refresh his

 5     memory, but apparently trigger his memory, which is -- well, let's see --

 6     let's again ask the witness, having looked at this document, if anything

 7     comes back into his mind of which he has personal knowledge.  Let's avoid

 8     that we invite the witness to do the exegeses of documents which is for

 9     the Chamber to do.

10             MR. JORDASH:  Certainly.

11        Q.   Let me -- if, Mr. Witness, you are unable to assist as to who

12     sent or requested SRS volunteers to come into SBWS during 1991, then I

13     won't ask you any further questions on that subject.  Are you able to

14     assist the Court on that subject?

15        A.   We can see in the heading that it says SAO Western Slavonia,

16     Krajina --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  You're invited to answer the question and not to

18     start interpreting the letter.  That's exactly what we'd like to avoid.

19             So could you please answer the question that was put to you by

20     Mr. Jordash.  Whether you could assist us from your own knowledge as to

21     who sent or requested SRS volunteers to come into SBWS during 1991.  Have

22     you any knowledge about it?  Who asked?  Who did send them?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is obvious that it depended on

24     one unit to the next, one town to the next.  It was all individual.  All

25     of them had their own individual mechanisms.  As for the area of

Page 1866

 1     Podravska Slatina which is mentioned here, I don't know anything about

 2     that region.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps the witness -- you tell us that it would be

 4     different from one unit to the next.  Tell us about one unit.  Who asked

 5     them to come, and who did send them?  And tell us what unit you are

 6     talking about.  And then we'll move to the next one which may be

 7     different.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll tell you this.  First of all,

 9     this is a completely new territorial entity for me, SAO Krajina,

10     Western Slavonia, I know nothing about that --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not asking you about this.  You said it would be

12     different from one unit to another, and you do not know anything about

13     Podravska Slatina.  Fine.  You apparently know that it went not the same

14     way for all units.

15             Now, tell us what you do know, that is, give us one example of a

16     unit who asked them, and who did send -- who asked for their appearance,

17     and who did send them?  You may choose whatever unit you have any

18     personal knowledge about.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, then I'll choose Vukovar.  I

20     can only tell you about Vukovar.  During that period of time there was

21     the government of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.  If this is how

22     calls were sent to the volunteers, then it means that the same would have

23     been applied by the government of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.

24     But I don't know of a single document of a similar content that was sent

25     from Vukovar.

Page 1867

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not talking about documents at this moment.  You

 2     said it was different from one unit to another.  I just want to hear from

 3     you what you know about one example.  Because if you say, This is

 4     different from that, then you apparently have some knowledge of the two,

 5     otherwise you couldn't compare them.

 6             Now, do you know of any unit, who requested that they would come,

 7     and who did send them?  If you know.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  During that period of time I

 9     was in Belgrade, at that time.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, even if you're in Belgrade you sometimes can

11     know something.  But do you know, or do you not know?  Because in

12     Belgrade you can hear, for example, who requested --

13             THE WITNESS:  [No interpretation]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You have no knowledge that.  Let's then move on.

15             Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no knowledge.

17             MR. JORDASH:

18        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Savic.

19             Let me ask you -- I'm going to try to short-cut things.  Let me

20     ask you to turn to the first statement again, ERN number 0119-1905.  And

21     in the English version it's on page 15 -- sorry, let's go -- my page 16,

22     and the paragraph I'm looking at is the paragraph which starts with:  "I

23     am not aware ..."

24             There doesn't seem to be a B/C/S counterpart.  Here we go.  I'm

25     looking at the paragraph at the top for Your Honours.

Page 1868

 1             "I am not aware that the SRS had a War Staff in Belgrade."

 2             Can you find that in the B/C/S version, Mr. Savic?  Do you have

 3     that?

 4        A.   No.  I can't see it.

 5        Q.   Can you see it now?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  What portion would you like the witness to see?

 7             MR. JORDASH:  The English part is:  "I'm not aware that the SRS

 8     had a War Staff in Belgrade ..."

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. JORDASH:  This is --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  It's two paragraphs above the "weapons and political

12     parties" heading.

13             MR. JORDASH:  Yeah.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And I thought ...

15             MR. JORDASH:  This --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see it now.

17        Q.   Just have a quick read of that paragraph, and let me ask some

18     quick questions to try to shortcut things.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   [Previous translation continues]...

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   [Previous translation continues]...  answer these questions, yes

23     or no?  Ilija Petkovic was a member of the SDS board in Markusica; is

24     that right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 1869

 1        Q.   Petkovic was also a member of Seselj's volunteer unit; is that

 2     correct?

 3        A.   He was commander of the War Staff.

 4        Q.   And am I also correct that Milan Lancuzanin, also known as

 5     Kameni, was the leader of the volunteers in Vukovar in 1991?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the questions are posed.  It says

 9     Petkovic.  And in the section of the statement, there's actually

10     references to two different Petkovics.  If we could please have the first

11     name from the witness.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, would you follow that suggestion.

13             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, I will.

14        Q.   Just going back to Petkovic, Mr. Savic.  Ilija Petkovic was a

15     member of the SDS board in Markusica; is that correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Milan Lancuzanin was the leader of the volunteers in Vukovar in

18     1991.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Was he a member of Seselj's SRS party?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Was he a member of the SDS or a SDS board?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   If you look at the paragraph below, the one we just looked at

25     with Ilija Petkovic contained within it, and it says in the last two

Page 1870

 1     sentences:

 2             "In Western Slavonia Veljko Vukelic" was in charge of the TO --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Isn't it -- yes, we have to move to the next page.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  I beg your pardon, sorry.

 5        Q.   Sorry, Mr. Witness, can you see the next sentence beginning:  "I

 6     remember" --

 7        A.   Yes, I can see that, yes.

 8        Q.   The last two sentences:

 9             "In Western Slavonia Veljko Vukelic was in charge of the TO, and

10     they agreed with the JNA and nothing could be done without the approval

11     of the JNA."

12             Is that correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   "Logistics, weapons, everything was under the control of the

15     JNA."

16             Is that correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   "This applied in all the areas."  Is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

21             MR. WEBER:  Objection as to foundation.  And if we could just

22     have the time-period that's being referenced here.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, apparently you took statements where

24     time-periods are not addressed properly.  Is that ...

25             MR. WEBER:  If we could just have the witness clarify what

Page 1871

 1     time-period is he talking about, this being run through the JNA.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  I was going to get to that point.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do so.

 5             MR. JORDASH:

 6        Q.   This applied in all the areas.  Which areas are you referring to?

 7        A.   We spoke about Slavonia, Western Slavonia, and Baranja; however,

 8     things changed very quickly.  At one point in time --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether things changed depends on when they

10     happened, and that's what Mr. Jordash will ask you questions about.

11             MR. JORDASH:

12        Q.   When was it that the logistics, weapons, everything for the war

13     that was now taking place, when was -- let me start that again.

14             When was it that -- when the logistics, weapons, and everything

15     was controlled by the JNA in the areas you've just mentioned?

16        A.   Until the conflict broke out.

17        Q.   When do you put that?

18        A.   As soon as Seselj's volunteers appeared, everything fell apart

19     and everybody would put themselves under their command because they

20     clearly said that they were against the JNA and they were under the

21     control of the State Security Service.

22        Q.   So just remind me, if you would, Seselj came at what point in

23     1991?

24        A.   Which area do you have in mind?

25        Q.   Well, when do you say everything changed?  What was the date, the

Page 1872

 1     best you can do now?

 2        A.   Once the conflict broke out and once the volunteers of the

 3     Serbian volunteer party appeared, everything changed.  As events were

 4     taking place in different locations, they would go there.  There isn't a

 5     specific date or something that we could point to.

 6        Q.   Well, are we talking about 1991?

 7        A.   All of it is 1991, yes.

 8        Q.   Beginning, middle, or end of 1991 when Seselj came?  When did it

 9     change in Vukovar, that the JNA were no longer in control of the

10     logistics and supplies and so on?

11        A.   I left Vukovar on the 2nd of May after the events in Borovo Selo.

12     The left bank of the Danube had already been taken by the police, and the

13     police had it under its control.  Therefore, the arrival of all

14     volunteers, mostly volunteers, went under the control of the police.  If

15     they didn't let somebody through, that person couldn't cross.

16        Q.   Isn't it the case that you were in Vukovar on the 18th of

17     November, 1991?

18        A.   That was already November, end of combat.  It's possible that I

19     can't remember the date, but once the combat was over I came to Vukovar.

20        Q.   Well, I'm suggesting that the combat wasn't over and you attended

21     on the 18th of November.  So could that be possible?  Before the

22     massacres -- there was a -- do you know of a meeting on the 18th of

23     November involving Hadzic and a number of civilian authorities?  Do you

24     know of a meeting --

25        A.   In Vukovar?

Page 1873

 1        Q.   Yes.

 2        A.   You mean in Vukovar?

 3        Q.   In Velepromet.

 4        A.   In Velepromet that was towards the end of combat, yes -- or

 5     rather, I heard that there was a meeting.

 6        Q.   And am I correct that that meeting involved Prime Minister

 7     Hadzic?

 8        A.   Yes, Hadzic was there as was Arkan, Slavko Dokmanovic I think,

 9     and other people from the establishment.

10        Q.   And JNA leaders such as Colonel Vuzic; is that correct?

11        A.   You mean Vuzic?

12        Q.   Yes.

13        A.   I don't know.  I don't know the details.  I am not clear about

14     Vuzic.  I don't know who that person is.  But as for Arkan and for Goran,

15     Slavko Dokmanovic, and I don't know who else, yes, they had a meeting.

16     At the time I was at the staff in Sid.

17        Q.   And you're aware, aren't you, that on the 20th of November there

18     were crimes committed by the JNA at the Vukovar Hospital, in

19     collaboration with paramilitary groups; is that correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   So we know, don't we, is this correct, in November 1991, at that

22     point paramilitary groups are acting under the subordination of the JNA?

23     Am I correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And throughout 1991, I suggest, Seselj's volunteers, when they

Page 1874

 1     came into the region, were attached to various TOs and various JNA

 2     commanders, a unity of command; am I correct?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   Who was Seselj and his volunteers working with?  Can you name the

 5     people who was working with or the group?

 6        A.   Why would the military and volunteer -- units of volunteers have

 7     singled out Leva Supoderica as a special unit?  And that would be your

 8     answer.  Seselj's people were a special unit, the so-called

 9     Leva Supoderica headed by the so-called Kameni, Lancuzanin.

10        Q.   Yes.  And Lancuzanin, I suggest, was subordinated with Seselj's

11     volunteers with the 1st Assault Detachment, 1st Military District; is

12     that right?  Could that be right?

13        A.   No, I can't confirm this.  However, Leva Supoderica, as a special

14     unit, was there in the area.

15        Q.   Okay.  If you can't confirm that, then I'll leave it and ask

16     another witness.  Can you confirm this, that Soskocanin, who you referred

17     to yesterday as getting shot, was he a TO commander at Borovo Selo in

18     1991?

19        A.   Yes, he was appointed by the newly establishment administration

20     of SBWS as the commander of the Territorial Defence there.

21        Q.   So he would have had access to the JNA supplies, wouldn't he?

22        A.   No.  That was the Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and

23     Western Srem, as it was already known at the time.  And if I may assist

24     you with something --

25        Q.   Let me ask you this:  Would he have had access to TO weapons and

Page 1875

 1     supplies -- local TO weapons and supplies?

 2        A.   Well, let's assume so.  He was its commander, so one would be

 3     able to assume so.  But that's already -- that's again May 1991.

 4        Q.   Yeah.

 5        A.   On the one hand we have November, and on the other hand we have

 6     May.

 7        Q.   Well, what happens in November?  What are you suggesting was the

 8     change in November?

 9        A.   We were talking about the previous ratio of forces,

10     Leva Supoderica on the one hand and others, I don't know.  And if we're

11     talking about Soskocanin, then we have to talk about the month of May,

12     about a new ratio of forces on the ground.  This is what I'm saying.

13        Q.   I'm not sure I followed that.  Just briefly, in May of 1991

14     Soskocanin is the TO commander of Borovo Selo, and in November is he

15     still a commander?

16        A.   He was assassinated on the 15th of May.

17        Q.   So what's the -- who takes over as commander?

18        A.   Badza was the one.  Radovan Stojicic, the assistant minister of

19     state security of Serbia.

20        Q.   So you think he was the assistant minister of the state security?

21     Are you sure about that?

22        A.   [No verbal response]

23        Q.   Could I suggest that he was a part of the public security,

24     distinct from the state security?  Do you know that distinction?

25        A.   Okay.  I admit that I am not aware of the difference.  In any

Page 1876

 1     case he was a high -- a police official of the Republic of Serbia, and he

 2     was appointed as commander of the Territorial Defence in Borovo Selo as

 3     such.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Savic.  So when you use the term "state

 5     security," then you could be referring to the public security or the

 6     state security?  You don't really make -- or are unable to make a

 7     distinction?

 8        A.   Well, he didn't -- they did not make a clear line among

 9     themselves either.  Their jobs intertwined, so it's really difficult for

10     me to know because I think they didn't either.

11        Q.   Fair enough, Mr. Witness.  Let me move quickly, and I'm going to

12     try and finish the next -- the end in the next ten minutes or so, so I

13     hope you can help me.  Let me first of all turn quickly to your statement

14     again.  We look again, if you would, at the paragraph we looked at before

15     dealing with Lancuzanin.  Have you found that?  Have you found that,

16     Mr. Savic?

17        A.   I'm looking.  Yes, I've got it.

18        Q.   Okay.  What I'm interested in is the sentence here, the first two

19     sentences:

20             "I remember that Ljubisa Petkovic was wearing a camouflage

21     uniform.  I do not recall whether he had some insignia on it.  At one

22     point Petkovic was replaced as commander of the volunteers and publicly

23     accused by Seselj of being a DB agent ..." but this happened in 1993.

24             Is that correct?

25        A.   I do not remember the year; however, this was the schedule of

Page 1877

 1     events, the commander of a War Staff of a party.  A party has a

 2     War Staff, if you will, and the commander is somebody from the state

 3     security, and that is the gist of the matter.  Ljubisa Petkovic was a

 4     member of the state security --

 5        Q.   And the point is this, that Seselj was unhappy about that because

 6     he believed Petkovic was working for the DB; is that correct?

 7        A.   Well, it was a pure manipulation.  Seselj was also working for

 8     the state security, but the moment when the manipulation took place is of

 9     no consequence.

10        Q.   Well, if that's your answer, we can move on from that.  I want to

11     ask you quickly about Arkan.  You claim to have seen him in a restaurant

12     and you say that he told you he worked for Stanisic.  Is that correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And why did you ask him the question?  You said yesterday you

15     wanted to make sure it was not Milosevic.  What was the logic of that?

16        A.   In order to -- Arkan put more questions to me than I to him.

17     However, when we started that conversation, I followed my style.  I

18     always used to ask people very direct questions --

19        Q.   Mr. Witness --

20        A.   I simply asked him --

21        Q.   Sorry to interrupt you, but I'm trying to finish.  Why did you

22     ask him?  Why were you keen, or why did you want to make sure he did not

23     work for Milosevic?

24        A.   Since the service as a service worked for Milosevic, it was

25     really of no consequence who was whose boss there.

Page 1878

 1        Q.   So why did you ask him then, if it was of no consequence?

 2        A.   Because it mattered.  I explained to him why I'm talking to him.

 3     I told him that I understood what he was doing, I knew why he was doing

 4     it, but that our goals were completely different to put it simply.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 6             MR. WEBER:  Just request that the witness be allowed to finish

 7     his answer.  They're open-ended questions, and the witness is attempting

 8     to provide a full answer for the next question.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just.  Yes, I would not under all

10     circumstances, whether the witness is providing a full answer to the

11     question, or whether he's providing a very full answer which is not

12     totally unrelated to the question is now and then to be determined.

13     The -- you may proceed, Mr. Jordash.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

15        Q.   Okay.  Let me ask you a different question.  You gave evidence

16     yesterday that you'd seen Bogdanovic the day before seeing Arkan; is that

17     right?

18        A.   Yes, yes.

19        Q.   Bogdanovic had -- if you're telling the truth, Bogdanovic had

20     said to you -- Bogdanovic had said to you, We gave you Arkan.  So you

21     knew from the day before that Arkan's boss was Bogdanovic.  So why did

22     you need to ask Arkan who his boss was the next day?

23        A.   I believe that at the time Bogdanovic did not really deal with

24     that.  In my mind Bogdanovic was a very reasonable man.  I held him in

25     very high esteem, and I thought that he was a person of high integrity.

Page 1879

 1     He was an MP and a president of a committee, I believe.

 2        Q.   That's right.  He was -- he wasn't the minister of interior when

 3     you met him, was he?

 4        A.   Not at that point in time, no.

 5        Q.   But he was suggesting to you that he was in control of Arkan,

 6     wasn't he?  That's what he was suggesting to you.

 7        A.   When he said, We have given you Arkan as commander, how I could

 8     interpret it.  I believe that it was a decision that had been reached

 9     previously, that he was put abreast of that decision, and that he

10     conveyed the message to me.  I believe that this had been agreed

11     previously while he was a member of the service, while he was involved in

12     that.  That's how I interpreted his words.  That's how I understood him.

13        Q.   Okay.  If that's your answer.  Could I suggest that you never had

14     a conversation with Arkan in which Arkan said he had a boss called

15     Stanisic.  And that, frankly, is a fabrication.

16        A.   I had a meeting with Arkan upon his invitation, which means that

17     I was not the one who called the meeting.  I did not seek him.  I did not

18     call him.  He wanted to have a word with me, we met, and things at the

19     meeting transpired as I stated in my statement.  And I can also give you

20     a list of all of my other meetings with him.  In any case, I never sought

21     to meet him.  I never called any meetings with him at my initiative.

22        Q.   Okay.  Let's ask, please, for your first statement again to come

23     onto the screen, 0119-1905.  And I want to turn to page 23 of the English

24     version, and the second-to-last paragraph of the English version speaks

25     of this meeting you had with Arkan.  Could you find that in the B/C/S,

Page 1880

 1     please, Mr. Savic.  Can you see that?

 2        A.   Nothing's happening on my screen.

 3        Q.   I think it's coming, Mr. Savic.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Could I just consult with my learned friend,

 5     please.

 6                           [Defence counsel confer]

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Okay.  Are we there?

 8        Q.   This was your --

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   This was your account five years ago.  We can look at what you

11     said then about the meeting with Arkan.

12             "We greeted each other, and Arkan said to me:  'Brother, I turned

13     out as being a thief and criminal to your eyes.'  I said to him:  'A

14     bigger thief and criminal is the one who told you that.'  That was all we

15     said."

16        A.   Yes, that's how I'm reading it.  Yes, that's what it says here.

17        Q.   The point being:  Nothing about Stanisic.  That was a recent

18     invention.

19        A.   Yes, yes.  Here you can't see it.  However, when I provided my

20     first statement, that statement was provided in very general terms.  And

21     the person who recorded the interview -- the version that I provided is

22     truthful, and the way my sentence was interrupted here, I can only assume

23     that the person who was recording my words omitted some of my words.  The

24     recording clerk and myself looked at all the pages, but we did not pay

25     attention to every detail on every page.  And that is the only thing I

Page 1881

 1     can offer by way of explanation why the words have not been entered into

 2     the record of my interview.

 3        Q.   So if what you say is correct, then, you never said to the

 4     Prosecution, That was all we said.  Logic dictates then the Prosecution

 5     must have put that in if you didn't.  Are you saying that?

 6        A.   The ending of the statement doesn't make much sense to me.  This

 7     last sentence is not making any sentence.  It's not logical.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Let's leave it at that.  Could you just confirm that the

 9     first time you mentioned Arkan having the conversation where he told you

10     he worked for Stanisic was on the 4th or 5th of July, 2009, when you

11     spoke to the Prosecution --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

13             MR. WEBER:  I just want to be clear for the record.  He has

14     mentioned the conversation dating back to 2002, so if we could just be

15     clear in the form of the question being asked as to what is being said.

16             MR. JORDASH:  Well --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- let me just -- yes, that seems -- it's again

18     a composite question which creates possibly confusion.  If you would

19     please split it up.

20             MR. JORDASH:

21        Q.   Just -- Your Honour, I don't want to belabour the point.  I just

22     want to give you a chance to deal with it.  You did mention the

23     conversation with Arkan.  In your first statement, you never mentioned

24     him referring to Stanisic until the 4th or 5th of July of this year, did

25     you?

Page 1882

 1        A.   To be honest, I really don't remember when I was interviewed.

 2     However, the gist of all the interviews was the same.  I can't remember

 3     exactly when I provided interviews and what exactly I said, but there's

 4     no single reason for me to add something or fabricate something.

 5     There -- if I were to go over the same grounds three times, I'm sure that

 6     I would change the sequence in my telling the story.  It would never be

 7     the same, and that's the only explanation I have.

 8        Q.   Fair enough.  Let's move on.  Two more short subjects.  One is

 9     your references yesterday to Ilija Petrovic and Ilija Koncarevic.  You

10     mentioned yesterday that they were from the authorities in Belgrade,

11     State Security Services, Milosevic, the Government of Serbia.  Do you

12     recall that evidence?

13        A.   Yes.

14             MR. JORDASH:  Could I ask for statement -- it's the proofing

15     note.  ERN number 0632-1753, please.  I beg your pardon.  If you could

16     just give me a moment.

17        Q.   If you look at the first page, the paragraph 4, this is --

18     reflects a meeting you had with Klaus Hoffmann from the Prosecution on

19     the 11th of February -- sorry, it's a meeting you had on the 20th of

20     September, 2007.  And looking at paragraph 4, do you have it, Mr. Savic?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now it says:  "Koncarevic and Perovic" --

23        A.   Petrovic.

24        Q.   Is that supposed to be Petrovic?

25        A.   Yes, Petrovic, right.

Page 1883

 1        Q.   So I'll read it in that way.

 2             "Koncarevic and Petrovic were agents of the Serb

 3     military security ..."

 4             Is that what you told the Prosecution then, that they were agents

 5     of the military security, not the state security?

 6        A.   If that is how it is stated here, then yes.

 7        Q.   That's -- is that correct?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was whether you said it.  There are two

 9     possibilities.  Either that it's correctly reflected in this document, in

10     that case you said it; or it's incorrectly reflected in this document,

11     and that's then because you didn't say it.  Did you say that Koncarevic

12     and Petrovic were agents of the Serb military security?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can I offer something

14     by way of explanation, very briefly.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I'd first like to have an answer to my

16     question, and then if there's any need to further explain, I'd like to

17     hear your explanation.

18             But first, do you remember whether you said that these two

19     persons were agents of the Serb military security?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Then if there's any need for further explanation, I

22     leave it to Mr. Jordash to ask you questions about that.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, my answer's yes.

25             MR. JORDASH:

Page 1884

 1        Q.   And you understand the distinction between the military service

 2     and the state service?  Do you understand that?

 3        A.   I'll try and explain.  All was so intertwined.  When Petrovic and

 4     Koncarevic introduced themselves, first they said that they were from

 5     Belgrade, from Milosevic, from the authorities, and you can interpret

 6     that any way you want.  There was no major difference between the

 7     military and State Security Service -- or at least I did not see it.  It

 8     was a combination or a mixture where both services were so interconnected

 9     it was not possible to make a distinction between the two of them.

10     However, the fact is that whatever they did was the job of the state

11     security, the establishment of the National Council, the establishment of

12     powers, that would fall within the purview of the state security.  And I

13     agree, I accept, that what is stated herein is what I said at the time.

14     Because they all hid behind each other, and it was such a melange, such a

15     mixture that it was very difficult for me to make any distinctions,

16     although I was involved and I spoke to them.  I can only imagine how

17     difficult it must be for you to make that distinction.

18        Q.   And difficult also to make the distinction between military

19     police, and also public police as well I suspect; is that right?  Yeah.

20        A.   If an agent comes and if he knows that people will line up with

21     the military, then they say, We are from the military service.  If

22     somebody comes and knows that people don't want to line up with the army,

23     they say, We are from the state security.  If we go back to the period

24     where all that happened and when you fast-forward and see how things

25     ended, you will see that all of that is the consequence of all the

Page 1885

 1     combinations and all the things that they did hiding behind each other.

 2     The commander of the military district was running after Arkan and

 3     staging all sorts of shows together with him, the shows which would have

 4     been funny if they were not tragic.  When we're talking about those times

 5     and everything that was happening at the time, it's really difficult to

 6     know who was who.  They said one thing and did another.  The only thing

 7     that was under control was people being victimised and plundered and

 8     property looted.  Everything else was of no consequence at all.

 9        Q.   Right.  And on the same subject, I mean you met Dragan --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, so we are now approximately 25 minutes,

11     I think, past the time where you said that you would finish in

12     ten minutes.  I notice that you consulted with Mr. Jovanovic.  We need to

13     have a break soon.  Will you finish within the next couple of minutes or

14     not?  Otherwise we have to discuss how to proceed.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, Your Honour, I can finish in two minutes

16     because --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I'm looking at the clock.  Two minutes means

18     5.30.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. JORDASH:

21        Q.   On the same subject, you met Captain Dragan at some point in

22     1992; is that right?

23        A.   On the 4th of August, 1992, when Captain Dragan was expelled from

24     Knin, the first person who saw him and received him in Belgrade was me.

25     I met with him in the office of Brana Crncevic at about 10.00.  Brana

Page 1886

 1     said that Captain would come, and he himself was going to see Milosevic

 2     to see what to do about him.  He arrived accompanied by Sasa Medakovic --

 3        Q.   Sorry, I'm against the clock, so I've got to cut you short.  Can

 4     you confirm that Dragan said to you that he had not realised he was

 5     working in Golubic for the DB?  Can you confirm that's what he said?

 6        A.   Right now it's very hard.  I would have to really make an effort

 7     to remember all that.  But since I suppose that the office was bugged, I

 8     didn't really talk to him a lot.  I let him do most of the talking, and I

 9     would occasionally put a question to him about the kind of work that he

10     did over there and --

11        Q.   Mr. Witness, it's a very straightforward question.  Did Dragan

12     say to you that he had been removed from Knin and he was not aware that

13     he was being used by the Serbian DB, yes or no?

14        A.   I think no.  I don't think we even talked about those things.

15        Q.   Well, let's pull up the same statement, please, that was -- we

16     had, the proofing notes.  [Microphone not activated].

17             -- we can't.  I'm referring -- well, maybe you'll accept it from

18     me, Mr. Witness, that in the proofing notes from your time with

19     Klaus Hoffmann on the 20th of September, 2007, that's what it says.

20     Could you have said that to Klaus Hoffmann?

21        A.   If that's what it says in the statement, then, yes, I said that.

22     But I would like to see it to remind myself of it.

23        Q.   Fair enough.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Could the statement be pulled up, please --

25             MR. WEBER:  If it would expedite things, the Prosecution would

Page 1887

 1     agree that the proofing note states:

 2             "Dragan had no clear idea why he was removed from Knin nor was he

 3     aware that he was being used by the Serbian DB ..."

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

 5        Q.   Do you still wish to see it, Mr. Savic, or will you accept that

 6     we can -- you would still like to see it?

 7        A.   That's my conclusion.  That wasn't uttered by Captain Dragan.

 8     This is my conclusion.

 9        Q.   Fair enough.  Okay.  Last question is this:  Could I just suggest

10     to you that you never had the conversation with Medic about Stanisic

11     being his boss in the same way you didn't have it with Arkan and you

12     didn't have it -- let me stick with Medic.  You didn't have it with him,

13     I suggest.

14        A.   The conversation had to do with the context described in the

15     statement.  Slobodan Medic and I talked upon his invitation, and it was

16     in the context described by me.  And he also said that I should be in

17     charge of that entire project.  And I clearly stated that I didn't want

18     to do that because I don't know whether they recorded this in the

19     statement.  I didn't want to create the government of Slavonia, Baranja,

20     and Western Srem and deal with agricultural land.  Yes, it is true, we

21     met and we had that type of conversation, just like with Arkan.

22        Q.   Okay.  Well, we'll agree to disagree.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

25             Mr. Weber.

Page 1888

 1             MR. WEBER:  Since Mr. Jordash just finished, I just wanted to

 2     raise one matter, exhibit --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  In the presence of the witness?

 4             MR. WEBER:  Yes.  Exhibit 3906 was used with this witness.  We

 5     did object to foundation just because it wasn't clear at the time of the

 6     witness's testimony; however, the Prosecution did inform Mr. Jordash that

 7     we would not oppose, and we would agree to the admission of the exhibit

 8     before today.  So I didn't know if Mr. Jordash intended on tendering it,

 9     but I just wanted to let him know that if he does intend to, we would

10     have no objection.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12                           [Defence counsel confer]

13             MR. JORDASH:  I think that was the exhibit the witness didn't or

14     wasn't able to comment on, I think.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  3906 was the ... ?

16             MR. WEBER:  The witness's own personal knowledge of it was

17     limited; however, if counsel is seeking to tender it, we're not going to

18     object to it.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and apparently you're not?

20             MR. JORDASH:  No, not at this stage.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So it's fine to know that you would have had

22     an objection if it would have been tendered.  That's useful information

23     for the Chamber to think over during the next break.  We'll have a break

24     of 20 minutes, and we'll resume at five minutes to 6.00.

25                           --- Recess taken at 5.36 p.m.

Page 1889

 1                           --- On resuming at 5.58 p.m.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Savic, you'll now be cross-examined by

 3     Mr. Jovanovic.  Mr. Jovanovic is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.

 4             I take it that you have together calculated that there may be

 5     some time needed for re-examination as well.

 6             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is with regret

 7     that I have to say that I will not be finished within the one hour that

 8     we still have remaining today.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  There is no way -- I left it to the parties to

10     divide the time.  Mr. Jordash consulted with you.

11             Mr. Jordash, were you informed that by taking so much time that

12     we would not finish the witness today.  He would have to stay here for a

13     week.  I think I was quite clear at the beginning yesterday.  It can be

14     finished -- the witness we conclude for the testimony tomorrow?  The

15     answer was yes.

16             MR. JORDASH:  There has been some delays.  That's been the

17     problem.  And the way in which --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the guidance of the Chamber was 80 per cent

19     to 100 per cent approximately from the time taken in chief.  I can tell

20     you that there were far more delays yesterday.  So therefore, even if the

21     Prosecution has taken slightly more time, I think, than announced, you

22     certainly did far more than ...

23             And I saw you halfway consulting.  If there was any way that you

24     would not conclude the testimony of this witness today, I should have

25     been informed, this Chamber should have been informed about it, not just

Page 1890

 1     to say, Well, time is not something to talk about, is to be used.

 2             Mr. Jovanovic, I give you two seconds to consult with Mr. Jordash

 3     on the matter, but --

 4             Mr. Weber.

 5             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution anticipates only ten minutes for

 6     re-examination, no more.  I believe we used two hours and nine minutes in

 7     examination-in-chief.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             Until now, two hours and nine minutes for the Office of the

10     Prosecution.  Defence until now one hour and 54 minutes.  I think the

11     guidance was quite clear, 80 to 100 per cent of the time taken in chief

12     for both teams together.  The Chamber is not -- of course we could say

13     next time 50 per cent each, but we thought that where the matter was

14     clear enough that you could -- you could divide the time, leave to

15     Mr. Jordash if he has a greater interest in dealing with certain matters.

16     The Chamber wants to -- one second, please.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  It is 6.00.  The Simatovic Defence has 50 minutes

19     for further cross-examination, and then there will be eight minutes left

20     for Mr. Weber.

21             Please proceed.

22             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

23                           Cross-examination by Mr. Jovanovic:

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Savic, you were shown the statement that you

25     provided to the OTP in 2002, and you confirmed that the statement

Page 1891

 1     contains your signature; am I right?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Could you please now look at the B/C/S version of your statement

 4     page 26, 27, and 28, the three last pages of the statement.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Could the counsel please refer to a 65 ter

 6     number.

 7             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The ERN 0119-1905-0119-1932.

 8     Could we have the B/C/S version starting with the title "miscellaneous."

 9     "Razno," R-a-z-n-o, page 26.  Yes.  Again the page is in English, not in

10     B/C/S.

11             Your Honour, will you allow me to read from the statement in

12     order to save time?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues]... it depends --

14             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Now it's okay.  Now we've got it.

15     Thank you.

16        Q.   Mr. Savic, it says here -- or rather, what you said was

17     interpreted as follows:

18             "I decided to give my statement to the International Criminal

19     Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia since it is obvious that I was

20     involved in all events from the very beginning.  It was completely clear

21     to me that an arbitration for war crimes committed in these territories

22     would require an institution of the international community.  Therefore,

23     the Court existed in my mind long before the International Tribunal was

24     set up, and I decided to testify even at that time."

25             Is that correct?

Page 1892

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Am I right in saying that you embarked on providing the statement

 3     with all seriousness?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have page 28

 6     containing the witness's signature.

 7        Q.   Here it says that this statement was read back to you in the

 8     Serbian language and that it contains everything you said to the best of

 9     your knowledge and recollection; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness now please be

12     shown page 3 in the same statement, page 3 in B/C/S, please.  The next

13     page, please.  Yes.

14        Q.   Mr. Savic, the last two paragraphs on the page.  It says in the

15     statement in the penultimate passage:

16             "The Chetniks followed Vojislav Seselj, the partisans

17     Vuk Draskovic and war profiteers followed Zeljko Raznatovic, Arkan.

18     Furthermore, since I had a lot of meetings and talks with people from the

19     JNA, I arrived at a conclusion that the role of the JNA was to monitor

20     the activities of the extremists and maintain peace.  One cannot speak

21     about the Chetnik Movement and militant forces without mentioning the

22     role of the military security and the military because that was part of

23     the authorities.  That coordination was hidden, but it functioned really

24     well obviously."

25             Did you say that?

Page 1893

 1        A.   Yes, I did.

 2        Q.   Page 4, please, paragraph 1.

 3             "It was never my intention to meet with representatives of the

 4     military, but they came to me, to talk to me.  I had contacts with

 5     partisans and generals, for example, with Jovan Krkobadic who was a

 6     member of the Association of Serbs in Croatia, furthermore, with

 7     Radojica Nenezic, lieutenant-general retired, who hailed from Ada, a

 8     place between Vukovar and Osijek, as well as with Jovo Kokot who was a

 9     partisan general from Western Slavonia.  They were some kind of advisor

10     to the JNA and provided a link between the JNA and people in the field."

11             Did you say that?

12        A.   Yes, I did.

13        Q.   Thank you very much.

14             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Page 7, please.  Paragraph 4 from

15     the top of the page.

16        Q.   "I asked Veljko Dzakula, asking for him to explain to me what the

17     next step would be and what he meant when he said that people had to

18     start an armed rebellion.  It occurred to me to mention the use of arms

19     when we're talking about a political solution.  He said that the army

20     would carry out its activities from the Hungarian border to the highway,

21     whereby cutting off the Western and Eastern Slavonia from Zagreb and

22     create a buffer zone of sorts."

23             Is that correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   On the same page, the penultimate paragraph:

Page 1894

 1             "I had my spy in Western Slavonia, and I was aware of the meeting

 2     between the SDS and the JNA; however, normally it would be said that

 3     those were only briefings.  Ilija Sasic and Veljko Dzakula attended the

 4     meetings regularly and Milun Karadzic occasionally, and the last person

 5     was the secretary of the SDS in Podravska Slatina.  Those meetings

 6     started towards the end of 1990."

 7             Did you say that?

 8        A.   Yes, I did.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

10             MR. WEBER:  I know we're translating back from the B/C/S

11     statement; however, just so we're clear his actual statement says "I had

12     my informant" not "I had my spy," in the English version.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that seems to be a translation issue.

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note that they do not have the

15     English translation of the correct page on the screen.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore whether the one is the correct

17     translation, or the other one is still to be seen.  But it's on the

18     record now.  We'll later deal with the way in which now the

19     cross-examination takes place.  Let's -- in order not to further lose

20     time, Mr. Jovanovic, you may proceed.

21             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   On page 8, paragraph 1, it is stated:

23             "Dzakula responded that everything was organised in Belgrade

24     without any explanation as to who organised it.  Dzakula said that the

25     military would provide weapons and that they would take the territory

Page 1895

 1     between Hungary and the highway."

 2             Is that what you stated?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jovanovic, is my recollection wrong that this

 5     was read already to the witness at an earlier stage?  Why read again to

 6     him and ask whether he said this, where it's my clear recollection that

 7     this portion was already read to him, if I'm not mistaken.  Isn't it?  Or

 8     is my recollection wrong?

 9             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you're right, but I

10     want to hear very specific answers from the witness because after

11     providing his answers, he said that he was confused and he simply did not

12     make a distinction between people who were in the field at the time and

13     who worked for what service.  And in this statement it seems that he

14     stated everything very explicitly, and I'm just asking for him to repeat

15     the same things in the same way.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes --

17             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] In other words, the statement

18     that he provided originally does not contain any ambiguities.

19        Q.   On page 10 below the title "National Council, Slavonia, Baranja,

20     and Western Srem," second paragraph.

21             "At the very outset when the party first was established, I

22     tasked Soskocanin with establishing a group of 200 people who would

23     provide the members of the party with security and prevent any

24     provocations that might happen in such an environment."

25             Is that what you said?

Page 1896

 1        A.   Yes, I did.

 2        Q.   Did you indeed give order for 200 men --

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   -- to establish a group of 200 people who would provide security?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Page 12, the penultimate paragraph.

 7             "Jovo Ostojic across the Danube established communication that

 8     he, himself, controlled.  He worked on behalf of the SRS, the Serbian

 9     Radical Party.  He provided security for volunteers and arms who were

10     being transferred from Vojvodina across the Danube."

11             Did you say that?

12        A.   Yes, I did.

13        Q.   Page 14.  The title is:  "Meetings with Seselj."  Third

14     paragraph.  "Matic," I believe we are talking about Branislav Matic,

15     Beli, "Matic was a member of the Serbian guard Vuk Draskovic, which was a

16     parallel structure together with Arkan's Serbian Volunteer Guard."

17             Did you say that?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Page 15, paragraph 1:

20             "Let me explain Seselj's offer in the territory of Slavonia,

21     Baranja, and Western Srem, it was very difficult to establish any

22     association without me.  Kertes, Bogdanovic, Petrovic, Obradovic told me

23     that personally, and the following party that was established in Krajina

24     was the SRS, the Serbian Radical Party.  But it was only in May 1992 with

25     the great help of the RSK Army that had itself been set up by the JNA and

Page 1897

 1     by the government in Belgrade."

 2             And in this same paragraph it reads:  "...  the army was always

 3     actively involved in the elections in the Krajina."

 4             Is that correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   On the same page now, something that you've already spoken

 7     about - and I'm now asking for a more precise answer - you were talking

 8     about Ljubisa Petkovic, and you said that you met him in the Government

 9     of the Republic of Serbia.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And that on that occasion he was wearing a camouflage uniform.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   He was the chief of the War Staff of the Serbian Radical Party.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             Page 16:  "Weapons and political parties."

17             "After the establishment of the SRS in Krajina in May 1992,

18     Rade Leskovac was appointed the president of the SRS of Republika Srpska

19     Krajina ..."

20             And I'm not going to go on reading the whole thing.  Just one

21     thing from the same paragraph.

22             "The army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina provided the SRS

23     with financial support, logistics, weapons, and everything else.  For

24     example, people like Jovo Ostojic when they went to the front line in

25     Bosnia they received weapons from the VRSK.  It was a notorious fact, and

Page 1898

 1     on the other hand the SRS volunteers fought under the command of the

 2     VRSK ..."

 3             Is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes, it is.

 5        Q.   Third paragraph, same page.

 6             "Holding a place number one, the first major distributor of

 7     weapons was the League of Communists Movement for Yugoslavia ... "

 8             Explain to us what is the League of Communists Movement for

 9     Yugoslavia, please.

10        A.   The League of Communists Movement for Yugoslavia was a league of

11     communists which was set up within the framework of the JNA.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Who led that movement, that party?

13        A.   I believe it was General Mirkovic.

14        Q.   Thank you.  In that same paragraph we have stated:

15             "For instance, Ilija Sasic would receive weapons from them," this

16     is a reference to the League of Communists Movement for Yugoslavia, "and

17     the first volunteers were sent to Western Slavonia.  The person who was

18     in charge of the distribution of weapons in Western Slavonia was

19     Nikola Kaloper ..."

20             Is that correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just seek one point of clarification.  I

23     think a portion which was just read to the witness about the League of

24     Communists Movement for Yugoslavia, I think the statement said that it

25     was led by Mira Markovic, whereas now we find a name which is quite

Page 1899

 1     similar, although apparently another person, General Mirkovic.  Was that

 2     a mistake at the time when Mira Markovic was mentioned or -- could you --

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the first designated

 4     chairman of the party was General Mirkovic.  However, things changed so

 5     fast that we don't know how long whose tenure lasted, who did what, who

 6     had what role, what function, et cetera, so that it can be seen as --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Was the movement at any later stage led by

 8     Mira Markovic or is that name a mistake?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That movement was in fact not

10     established at all.  Materials were distributed in the army for the

11     setting up of the party, et cetera, but it all came to naught and youths

12     sprang from it in fact later.  So it is very hard to define where one

13     began and the other ended, what was transformed into what from what.  It

14     will take 50 years of trials for that to be determined.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Jovanovic.

16             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17        Q.   The last paragraph on this same page.

18             "We both knew the retired JNA General Radojica Nenezic ..."

19             I believe that you are referring to Ilija Sasic and yourself?

20        A.   I am referring to Nikola Kaloper.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Page 17, penultimate paragraph.

23        Q.    "One day in July 1991 before the mentioned meeting in the League

24     of Communists, the Movement for Yugoslavia, I met Kaloper in Nenezic's

25     home in Dedinje, Belgrade.  On that occasion Nenezic introduced Kaloper

Page 1900

 1     to me as his old friend and associate.  The following day I was invited

 2     to see Kaloper in his office in the SKPJ building in Belgrade.  You could

 3     only enter the building by producing your ID and a check as to who you

 4     were supposed to meet with there.  In Kaloper's office I saw a large

 5     number of journalists who had escaped from Croatia and some people from

 6     Podravska Slatina ..." and then you mention a number of names.  And then

 7     there is a sentence in that same paragraph.

 8             "On that occasion Kaloper told me that in Western and Eastern

 9     Slavonia, in the area of Vukovar and Osijek between 12 and 15.000 rifles

10     had been distributed."  Is that correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   On page 18, the first paragraph, you stated:

13             "In order to reach Bobota one has to ferry across the Danube on a

14     raft.  Kaloper and General Nenezic were accompanied by the Novi Sad JNA

15     Corps because Kaloper was reporting to Novi Sad Corps command, and

16     General Bratic [phoen] who was the corps commander was in charge of

17     transport and security ..."

18             Is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Thank you.  On the same page, paragraph 3, third paragraph.

21             "At a certain point Dusan Pekic a JNA general, was retired who

22     was also the vice president of the association of Serbs from Croatia, who

23     live in Serbia, in Belgrade, and Goran Hadzic's advisor for military

24     issues.  Dusan Pekic became the contact person in the association for

25     people from Slavonia and Krajina who asked for weapons and support for

Page 1901

 1     war operations.  Once in 1991 I saw outside the seat of the association

 2     Jovo Ostojic who was loading uniforms into a van.  Dusan Pekic set up a

 3     centre for the training of volunteers in Prigrevica [phoen].  And

 4     Jovo Ostojic was the commander.  The president of the association was

 5     Professor Vucinic, whose first name I do not know.  And the

 6     secretary-general was Rodojkovic [phoen], a JNA retired general whose

 7     first name I do not know."

 8             Is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   In the next paragraph:

11             "People from Knin joined the association at whose head was the

12     mayor of Knin Milan Babic who was their president and mentor."

13             Is that correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Page 19, second paragraph.

16             "Pekic was one of the men who organised work in the field and who

17     whole-heartedly supported Slobodan Milosevic ..."

18             Is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Page 22 under the title:  "Serbian Volunteers Guard and similar

21     issues" -- and related issues.

22             "It was from Radmilo Bogdanovic that I heard for the first time

23     about the decision for Arkan to become the commander for Slavonia,

24     Baranja, and Western Srem.  This decision was taken by the Serbian

25     parliament on the 15th of May, 1991 ..."

Page 1902

 1             Is that correct?

 2        A.   No, something is incorrect.  The date is not right.  The 15th of

 3     May was the date when I was in parliament.  No decisions were adopted nor

 4     had they anything to do with this.

 5        Q.   It was not adopted on that day, or it was not adopted at all?

 6        A.   No.  This is a typo.  The 15th was the day when I was in

 7     parliament.  No decisions were taken on that day, and it was the time

 8     when I found that he was coming out -- he was the commander.

 9        Q.   But are you referring to an Assembly decision.  Can I then

10     conclude that that decision had been taken prior to the 15th of May when

11     you were in Assembly?

12        A.   I believe this is not a decision which is generally taken by

13     parliament, and it has nothing to do with the 15th of May.

14        Q.   I will ask you what I asked you in the beginning --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  If you take a break -- I would say if you take a

16     breath, then you would allow our interpreters and our transcriber to take

17     a breath as well.  Would you take a breath now and then.

18             Mr. Weber, you also want to take a breath?

19             MR. WEBER:  No, Your Honour.  I just wanted to be clear the

20     statement that's been quoted, it references no decision of the Serbian

21     parliament.  I believe this is being placed to the witness out of

22     context.  It's from -- on the English version page 22, it's underneath

23     the section entitled "Serbian Volunteer Guard" in the very first

24     sentence.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  There is a discrepancy

Page 1903

 1     between the translation and the original.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  It is -- you've heard the comments of the

 3     interpreters, that there is a discrepancy.

 4             Could you please slowly put the same issue to the witness again,

 5     Mr. Jovanovic.

 6             And may I ask, the statement was taken -- perhaps I should ask

 7     the witness.

 8             You were speaking your own language when you gave that statement;

 9     is that correct, Mr. Savic?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  So we are in a situation where the original is the

12     English, and then it has been apparently re-read to him in his own

13     language, which can create some discrepancies now and then.

14             Would you please put again to the witness slowly the passage

15     Mr. Weber referred to, Mr. Jovanovic.

16             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17        Q.   "It was from Radmilo Bogdanovic that I first heard about the

18     decision for Arkan to become commander for Slavonia, Baranja, and Western

19     Srem.  The decision was adopted by the Serbian parliament on the 15th of

20     May, 1991 ..."

21        A.   A typo in my view because it is illogical.  It is illogical to

22     associate these two.  First of all, this is not and should not be a

23     parliamentary decision.  This is not a matter decided by the Assembly, so

24     this is a typo, and this is the only way in which I can interpret it.

25     The sentence itself does not make sentence nor fits into the context.

Page 1904

 1        Q.   Was this statement read out to you?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   When it was read out to you, did you notice what you are now

 4     calling a typo?

 5        A.   No, I did not.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the --

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- testimony of the witness is clear.  He has

 9     pointed at the logic of the whole matter and -- yes, Mr. Weber.

10             MR. WEBER:  Just, the statement actually states not the decision

11     happened on the 15th of May, 1991, it says in reference to when

12     Radmilo Bogdanovic informed him of this decision, that this passage of

13     information, the actual quote says:

14             "This happened on the 15th of May, 1991, in the Serbian

15     parliament."

16             That's what the statement says.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So, therefore, you say that there is a --

18     could we ask the witness to look again at only those three lines in his

19     statement.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm looking at them.

21     It is not within the purview of the Assembly to adopt these decisions.

22     The meeting was after 1700 hours, at which time the parliament adjourns.

23     It works until 1700 hours.  So we met after that time, after

24     1700 hours -- 1500 hours.  I was there until 10.00, and there is -- it

25     doesn't make any sense to make a connection between the Assembly and

Page 1905

 1     this.  I can only treat it as a typo.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jovanovic, apparently the witness does not

 3     confirm the accuracy of this part of his statement.  You may proceed.

 4             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Mr. Savic, on several occasions when you adduced some new facts

 6     in relation to what you had said before, you said that you strained your

 7     brain, that you managed to remember some things.  Can you remember the

 8     function, the office that Radmilo Bogdanovic held at that time within the

 9     Assembly?  You did say that he was in charge of a committee.

10        A.   I believe it was the legislative or security committee.

11        Q.   So the parliamentary security committee.  You allow for that

12     possibility?

13        A.   Yes, I do allow for that possibility.

14        Q.   Mr. Savic, to -- a question by my colleague.  You said -- you

15     replied in relation to an encounter between you, yourself, and Arkan in

16     the Trozubac cafe in Belgrade?

17        A.   Yes, that is correct.

18        Q.   So in your statement you said what my colleague quoted, it ended

19     with you saying, That was all that I said.  And then subsequently when

20     you were talking with the OTP some six or seven years later, namely, you

21     recalled that you had also asked Arkan who he worked for.

22        A.   Yes, that is correct.

23        Q.   The Emigrant Society of Serbia that you worked for is in

24     Nusiceva Street?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 1906

 1        Q.   And the Trozubac cafe is just outside the entrance to the

 2     Emigrant Society?

 3        A.   Yes, just on the opposite side of the street.

 4        Q.   That was in May, this event was in May?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   At that time the cafe had an outside garden.  Am I correct?

 7        A.   Yes, you are correct.

 8        Q.   Where did you see Arkan, inside or outside?

 9        A.   Inside.  There is a bar inside when one enters the cafe, and then

10     there are some tables to the right-hand side, and that is where I saw

11     him.

12        Q.   Inside?

13        A.   Yes, inside, in the cafe.

14        Q.   Please if you can recall, how big a space are we talking about

15     inside Trozubac, the Trident cafe, and are there chairs and tables

16     inside?

17        A.   Indeed, there is a space around the bar.  Now whether there were

18     chairs or stools, we were not sitting in fact.

19        Q.   So Arkan was not sitting when you saw him inside?

20        A.   I think he was standing at the bar -- he was at the bar, and we

21     talked at the bar.

22        Q.   Was Arkan alone at the bar?

23        A.   He was not at the bar.  He was in front of the bar.  I believe

24     that there was no one of his men -- in fact, I don't even know who the

25     man was who brought me there, but we actually went out from the office,

Page 1907

 1     crossed the street, and entered the cafe.

 2        Q.   But did you used to sit outside that cafe when you went to the

 3     "matica," to the Emigrant Society?

 4        A.   Yes, whenever I had time for a cup of coffee, I would be there,

 5     maybe outside in the garden, not inside.

 6        Q.   And Arkan used to come there also as a rule?

 7        A.   I did not see him there for any time long or many times, but this

 8     was after I was released from the prison hospital in Plitvice and his

 9     arrival from Zagreb.  So that that was recent, and we were linked in some

10     sort of a context of those events.

11        Q.   Did you know the owner of the Trozubac cafe?

12        A.   No, although people said that he was -- that it was in the -- in

13     fact Arkan's cafe.

14        Q.   Had you heard that he was a friend of his who was the owner of

15     the cafe?

16        A.   Yes, the ownership was associated with Arkan.  I believe that in

17     a name it was -- the papers were in the name of somebody else, but it was

18     a -- people said that it was Arkan's.

19        Q.   Could anyone hear your conversation?

20        A.   I wasn't paying attention.  There was nothing missing or

21     secretive.  There was no need for us to be isolated from the rest of the

22     place.

23        Q.   So there was nothing secretive about the conversation in which

24     you were asking Arkan whom you met for the first time, as far as I could

25     understand you, who he was working for, and he answered you apparently

Page 1908

 1     that he was working for Jovica Stanisic.  And you don't see anything

 2     secretive about that?

 3        A.   No, I don't.

 4        Q.   Other people could hear that?

 5        A.   Why not?  Whoever who was there.  There was no mysticism, no

 6     secret, no secrecy about that conversation.  It was a normal conversation

 7     that would have taken place with anybody else whom you've met for the

 8     first time.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10        A.   Not at all.

11        Q.   And now I'm going to ask you something about the meeting you had

12     with Ilija Kojic.  You've already spoken about that.  Your meeting was in

13     Vukovar.  The weapons that he was talking about, did he offer them to you

14     personally, or did he offer you weapons, a larger quantity of weapons?

15        A.   No, he offered a piece to me personally.  He said, You're moving

16     about a lot.  You have to be protected, and something along these lines.

17     It was done in -- with the best of intentions.  It was not a deal of any

18     sort.

19        Q.   So this was just for your personal security?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Not at all.

22             Mr. Savic, did you know Trifun Ivkovic [phoen]?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   What was his function or position?

25        A.   He was working at the motel on the highway.  I don't know what

Page 1909

 1     his position was, and after that he was the head of the prison in

 2     Sremska Mitrovica.

 3        Q.   Did you sometimes go to the Sremska Mitrovica prison?

 4        A.   Yes, I did.

 5        Q.   What was the occasion?

 6        A.   I didn't go to the prison.  I went to the hotel which was also

 7     affiliated with the prison.

 8        Q.   Why did you go?

 9        A.   To have coffee.  On the way to Sabac where my mother lives I

10     would often stop there, and I was in the office when he was the head of

11     the prison there.

12        Q.   Did you ever go to Trifun's office when Croats from Vukovar were

13     detained in the prison in Sremska Mitrovica?

14        A.   I was not in the office.  I was there one morning having coffee

15     in the hotel, and there was a group of lawyers from Vukovar -- they were

16     actually judges.  I knew them all.  And in the next room, the room

17     behind, there was Trivo with some police officials.  He took me into the

18     room, introduced me to everybody there, and that's how the meeting ended.

19        Q.   I did not mean a visit to the prison in Sremska Mitrovica.  Were

20     you there at the time when Croats from Vukovar were detained in the

21     prison?

22        A.   You mean in the prison?

23        Q.   Yes, in the prison.

24        A.   No, I never visited the prison at that time, never visited the

25     prison, no.

Page 1910

 1        Q.   Mr. Savic, do you know Emil Cakalic, the hygiene inspector from

 2     Vukovar?

 3        A.   I believe that he knows me better than I know him, yes.

 4        Q.   So how did he get to know you?

 5        A.   He never really met me, Emil Cakalic, never did, never.

 6        Q.   Did you ever interview him about the activities of the HDZ in

 7     Vukovar?

 8        A.   Emil Cakalic was not even a member of the HDZ.

 9        Q.   However, this is what he's claiming.  But did you ever interview

10     him?

11        A.   Why would I interview Emil Cakalic when I had friends in the HDZ

12     and I knew everything about want HDZ?  I don't really know what I could

13     be talking about with Emil Cakalic.

14        Q.   Did you ever beat Mr. Cakalic?

15        A.   No.

16             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would, with the

17     agreement of the OTP, and we've already discussed that, I would like to

18     show the witness a document that was disclosed by the OTP pursuant to

19     Rule 68.  I have it in hard copy, and I have left enough copies for the

20     OTP, the Trial Chamber, and the interpreters.  With your leave I would

21     show the document to Mr. Savic.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The fact that you have sufficient copies for

23     the interpreters is an alarming message.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it that you want to quote one or --

Page 1911

 1             MR. WEBER:  Just --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jovanovic.  Yes, because you still have six

 3     minutes left, so reading the whole of the document would --

 4             MR. WEBER:  There is no agreement from the OTP with respect to

 5     this exhibit.  It has just been -- it was provided.  We received notice

 6     that it may be used about five minutes before court started today.  So we

 7     have not agreed to anything regarding the admissibility of this exhibit.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Jovanovic said that he had discussed the

 9     matter with the agreement of the OTP, so he's seeking that agreement, he

10     would like to show it to the witness.

11             Is that well understood?

12             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objection against putting it to the witness?

14             MS. BREHMEIER-METZ:  If I may interfere, Your Honours.  The

15     parties have agreed that if certain allegations are put to witnesses, the

16     parties will not say what they base their allegations on.  And I believe

17     this is a case in that Mr. Jovanovic is not acting in accordance with to

18     what he has agreed upon previously.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  This is a document, an Official Note, apparently not

20     prepared for the proceedings before this Tribunal or -- no, apparently

21     not.  It was produced 16th of May, 1992.

22             What would you like to do with the document, Mr. Jovanovic?  I

23     mean, this is a document, apparently an Official Note.  An Official Note,

24     from what I understand, are usually taken if someone is interviewed.

25     What's the purpose of this document to be used at this moment?

Page 1912

 1             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is about the

 2     functions that the witness has held of which he's never spoken.  He has

 3     testified before you about being the head of the SDS board in Vukovar and

 4     also that he was an employee of the Serbian emigration society in

 5     Belgrade.  What is noted here in this Official Note speaks about his

 6     functions --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  If he had other functions, why not ask

 8     the witness whether he had those functions.  I mean, if he has not spoken

 9     about it, I do not remember to have heard a question, Have you mentioned

10     by now all the functions you ever performed?  If there is anything you

11     think that the information is not complete in relation to the functions

12     he may have had, why not ask the witness?  Even without the statement --

13     or you may find in this statement the relevant information for you.  But

14     let's first ask the witness, and then if then he says, I've never had any

15     function, and if others say he had, then it would be time perhaps to look

16     at the statement and say, But others have said you had.  Could you just

17     ask the witness about the functions you said he had never spoke before.

18             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will ask the witness this.

19        Q.   Did you ever hold any functions that applied the duty to

20     interview witnesses and abusing them in the process?

21        A.   No.

22             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can I now read just one paragraph

23     from this Official Note to the witness, Your Honours?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and that would be on what page?  Because you

25     have now asked him.  What page of the document?

Page 1913

 1             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The penultimate page in B/C/S as

 2     well as in English.  The penultimate pages in both versions, the

 3     penultimate paragraph.  Just one sentence is the last paragraph, and I

 4     would like to read to the witness the paragraph above that last sentence

 5     on the penultimate page.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  But perhaps first -- function which applied to duty

 7     to interview witnesses and abusing them in the process is something -- I

 8     never heard of such a duty, and I wonder whether this is a mistake or

 9     were you serious?  I can imagine that someone would ask another person

10     whether he abused someone, but whether he was performing a function that

11     applied the duty to interview witnesses and abusing them in the process.

12     The question is unclear to me.  Let me say it this way.

13             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can rephrase.

14     Did he de facto have the authority to act in that way?

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you -- apparently, Mr. Savic -- a

17     Mr. Emil Cakalic provided a statement which is referred to in an

18     Official Note.  In this Official Note he was reported to have said that

19     on the 14th of December, 1991, that he was taken for questioning for the

20     first time, and when he entered the room, he saw Goran Hadzic and

21     Borivoje Savic.

22             First question:  Did you on the 14th of December, 1991, question

23     Mr. Borivoje Savic [sic]?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I made a mistake.  Whether you questioned

Page 1914

 1     Mr. Cakalic.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't.  I have a

 3     very simple explanation.  I've already discussed that with the

 4     authorities in Croatia.  I've already discussed the issue with them.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I just -- my first question was whether you

 6     questioned him, yes or no.  Were you present on that date --

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  You were present not with him on that date in one

 9     room?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  I never ever, absolutely never

11     interviewed anybody, and I can provide a simple explanation to avoid any

12     further confusion in anybody's mind.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  You've answered my question.

14             Mr. Jovanovic.

15             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  My last

16     question.

17        Q.   Mr. Savic, the invitation you received or the summons you

18     received by the Croatian court, why were you summoned?

19        A.   I believe it was the war crimes court, I believe that's its name.

20     First of all, Emil Cakalic and I provided two interviews about that to

21     the newspaper of "Vecernji List."

22        Q.   You asked about -- I'm asking you about the summons.  You've

23     already answered the Judge's questions.

24        A.   I was summoned, and I explained what this was all about.  My

25     conclusion was that Emil was a professional witness, that he had been

Page 1915

 1     prepped and served on the platter to say what he did.  And the Croats

 2     answered that Emil Cakalic had been prepared in The Hague, and that's

 3     where he had been told to say what he did, and that was the end of that

 4     story.

 5        Q.   Thank you very much, Mr. Savic.  Very well.

 6        A.   Not at all.

 7             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to

 8     tender this document for admission as exhibit, and I have no further

 9     questions for this witness.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

11             MR. WEBER:  We'd object to its admission.  The authenticity of

12     this exhibit -- the witness has not confirmed that these events ever

13     occurred, or the reliability of the exhibit is also highly suspect.  We

14     would note that Mr. Cakalic has testified before the Tribunal on the date

15     of 16th July, 2003, when asked about these events under oath on four

16     different occasion, on pages 14, 17, 61, and 62, Mr. Cakalic under oath

17     denied that this witness, and repeatedly affirmed -- that he was not

18     beaten by this witness.  So there is --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  The document will be marked for identification.  The

20     parties will have an opportunity to further make submissions on the

21     admission of this document because we're now finding other sources.

22             Mr. Jovanovic, you might have other responses to that as well.

23     We have no time to deal with that today.  You have asked the questions.

24     It will be marked for identification.  The parties will have an

25     opportunity to make further submissions on whether or not this document

Page 1916

 1     should be admitted into evidence.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D3, marked for identification,

 3     Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And it keeps that status for the time being.

 5             Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.  This concludes your testimony.

 6             Mr. Weber, could you be -- please be as short as reasonably

 7     possible.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.

 9                           Re-examination by Mr. Weber:

10        Q.   Mr. Savic, you were previously asked, and this is located on page

11     49, line 25, through page 50, line 2, of the transcript from today.  You

12     were asked about Badza.  And the question to you was:

13             "So you think he was the assistant minister of the state

14     security.  Are you sure about that?"

15             I believe you were nodding your head at the time.  The transcript

16     did not record a verbal response from you.  Could you please answer that

17     question.

18        A.   I know that he was in a very high position in the Minister of the

19     Interior.  I don't know what the title of that position was.  I wouldn't

20     be sure.  The fact is, however, that he had been -- that he was appointed

21     the commander of the Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and

22     Western Srem.

23        Q.   There were a number of paragraphs that were read from your

24     statement.  During the reading of these paragraphs, there were sentences

25     that were skipped in the reading of it.  I just want to confirm with you

Page 1917

 1     that in page 15, the third paragraph from the top, did you state in your

 2     statement of 2002:

 3             "I did not believe, and I have never seen the RSK army as a

 4     separate entity from the JNA ..."

 5             Did you also say that?

 6        A.   I'm sorry, I did not understand your question.  Could you repeat

 7     or rephrase.

 8        Q.   You were --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, does this arise from cross-examination?

10     And even if portions are read to the witness, is this a matter you could

11     not have raised in chief?

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I was allowing the -- I was not

13     objecting to counsel as he was reading the paragraphs in order to allow

14     him to go through it, but he skipped sentences that were pertinent.  And

15     in the context of what was read to him, I believe it's unfair to let the

16     record stand if a sentence was skipped.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I can't say that I immediately have a recollection

18     of what was in the context of this portion being read.  So in view of

19     this explanation, I allow you to verify this with the witness.

20             MR. WEBER:

21        Q.   Sir, you were asked questions on cross-examination about segments

22     of your 2002 statement.  Do you recall those segments?

23        A.   Yes, and I confirmed them.

24        Q.   Can you confirm in your 2002 statement you also stated in the

25     third paragraph of page 15:

Page 1918

 1             "I did not believe and I have never seen the RSK army as a

 2     separate entity from the JNA ..."

 3             Did you also say that in your statement?

 4        A.   It would be illogical for a non-existent state to have its army.

 5        Q.   Sir, my question to you was:  Was that also in your statement?

 6        A.   If it is in my statement, I adhere to it.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I don't know if we can reach some

 8     agreement maybe between the parties.  I do not want to carry this witness

 9     over into next week, but there's two sentences that were not read.  If we

10     can agree to the fact that they are in the statement.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And a question was put already whether he gave

12     that statement in all sincerity.  The portions you would like to refer

13     to?

14             MR. WEBER:  It would be in the English version, page 15.  It's

15     the paragraph -- third paragraph from the top, second line, last sentence

16     was skipped:  "I do not believe, and I have never seen the RSK army as a

17     separate entity from the JNA ..."

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but why not just ask him -- apart from what you

19     said in your statement, did you believe, or did you ever view the RSK

20     army as an entity separate from the JNA?  If you could just say yes or no

21     to start with.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

24             MR. WEBER:

25        Q.   I'll just put it to you then.  You were asked questions about the

Page 1919

 1     SRS in Krajina in May 1992 and read that portion of your statement.  It

 2     related to Mr. Ostojic and the VRSK and the providing of weapons by them.

 3     Did you also indicate, and is this correct:

 4             "Under normal circumstances the army has the control over the

 5     army weapons, but all of a sudden these weapons were distributed through

 6     political parties and certain individuals."

 7             Is that a correct statement?

 8        A.   Well, the political parties did not have the resources to be able

 9     to have weapons which to distribute.  So those who had the weapons

10     actually manipulated the weapons because no party had the resources with

11     which to provide weapons.

12        Q.   Is it fair to say all weapons weren't being distributed through

13     the military?

14        A.   No.

15        Q.   No, it's not fair to say that or -- could you please be clear in

16     your answer.

17        A.   Not all the weapons were distributed through the army.

18        Q.   Okay.  On page 59, line 20, you were asked a question about a

19     date in which you had a meeting with Captain Dragan.  You referenced the

20     4th of August, 1992; however, the Prosecution notes in your proofing note

21     you indicated the 3rd or 4th of August, 1991 --

22             MR. JORDASH:  Objection.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

24             MR. JORDASH:  The witness has given his evidence.  In our

25     submission, it's not for the Prosecution to go back to his written

Page 1920

 1     statement to bring out an answer that they'd prefer.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I earlier asked you, Mr. Weber, how this arises from

 3     cross.  Is there any specific link to a portion read to the witness

 4     earlier by Mr. Jovanovic?

 5             MR. WEBER:  There is page 59, lines 20 through 23, this was

 6     referenced.  All I'm going to put to the witness was:  What is the

 7     correct date?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that something we should -- why not verify with

 9     the witness, Mr. Jordash?

10             MR. JORDASH:  Only -- I suppose I'm -- I don't have a -- I'm

11     objecting out of principle in a way because --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, fine.  Let's be very practical.  I -- if a

13     principle would obstruct us to know the exact date, then perhaps we

14     should apply the principle in such a way that we would know about the

15     exact date.

16             You may ask the question, Mr. Weber.

17             MR. WEBER:

18        Q.   Mr. Savic, this meeting that you had with Captain Dragan, did it

19     occur on the 4th of August, 1992; or the 3rd or 4th of August, 1991?

20        A.   1991.  It was 1991.

21        Q.   When you were being interviewed in 2002, what case or what was

22     the focus of the questions that you were asked by the Office of the

23     Prosecutor?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jovanovic.

25             MR. JOVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object.  In no

Page 1921

 1     previously given written statement of this witness is a purpose indicated

 2     to the effect for what case he's giving testimony.  So this is knowledge

 3     of people who can be potential witnesses before this Court.  So witnesses

 4     should not be concretely specified which case they are supposed to give

 5     testimony for so that they focus on that, so that when they give

 6     testimony in other cases they can adduce a host of other facts.  The

 7     statement, in fact, does not indicate that it was given for any other

 8     case but this one.  It is being used for this case.  That is what I'm

 9     saying.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Whether that is a valid objection is another

11     matter.

12             What's the relevance of the question, Mr. Weber?

13             MR. WEBER:  If -- the witness has been questioned extensively

14     today --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  So what we can -- we can ask him whether he was

16     told.

17             Were you told in what case your statement -- to the benefit of

18     what Prosecution's case your statement was taken?

19             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, he gave multiple statements.  Can we

20     just be clear --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes --

22             MR. WEBER:  -- the 2002 --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  The 2002 statement I wanted to refer to.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it was not stated, it was not

25     indicated.

Page 1922

 1             MR. WEBER:

 2        Q.   During the course of the interview, was there a particular

 3     accused that you were being asked questions about in 2002?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. -- the Chamber can read in the statement if you

 5     would tender it for those purposes, or you could agree with the Defence

 6     on what questions were put.  What we are doing at this moment is that we

 7     are not -- this statement is not tendered into evidence, and everyone

 8     tries to get the best out of it; Mr. Jovanovic does so; you do so.

 9     That's not the way to proceed, as a matter of fact.  Please proceed to

10     your next question, and we'll finish in one or two seconds -- well,

11     minutes.

12             MR. WEBER:

13        Q.   When you were interviewed in 2002 and 2003, was the focus either

14     of those interviews Jovica Stanisic or Franko Simatovic?

15        A.   No.

16             MR. WEBER:  Nothing further.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Weber.  We have got one minute left.

18     Is there any urgent need to put another question to the witness?

19             MR. JORDASH:  No, thank you.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jovanovic.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jovanovic, of course the Chamber would have

23     reconsidered its decision to grant 15 minutes only if it, at the end,

24     would have considered it to be unfair.  What happened is that the joint

25     Defence assured the Chamber that we would conclude the evidence of this

Page 1923

 1     witness today.  And then suddenly, although the Chamber could personally

 2     observe that there was communication and apparently consultation between

 3     the Defence teams, was confronted at a very late stage with a conclusion

 4     that we could not -- that you could not finish your testimony today.

 5     That was at a time when the Defence had taken already two hours and

 6     46 minutes I think.  The OTP had taken two hours and nine minutes.  The

 7     guidance of the Chamber was that the parties would get I think it was

 8     80 to 100 per cent of the time in chief, which would mean a little bit

 9     less than two hours.  Now, you got approximately 50 per cent of a little

10     bit less than two hours.  The Chamber has further allowed you to conduct

11     cross-examination in a rather extraordinary way which gave you the

12     advantage of obtaining -- of having in evidence quite a bit more than you

13     would under normal circumstances have obtained.

14             At the same time, I announce to the parties that the way in which

15     we proceeded today is not the way we are going to proceed in the days and

16     months -- days, weeks, and months to come.  Whether we'll deal with this

17     in open court or whether the parties will be invited soon to further

18     discuss what we expect, for example, division of time between the Defence

19     teams.  If you can't agree on it, fine, the Chamber will just say

20     50 per cent for you, 50 per cent for you, but not the way in which it was

21     done.  Another observation is, Mr. Jovanovic, there would have been

22     technical different ways of having into evidence certain portions of the

23     statement that should have been properly prepared.  We could have seen

24     whether it would have been possible to have admitted portions of the

25     statement under Rule 92 ter.  But reading here and having everyone out of

Page 1924

 1     breath after 15 minutes is not the way in which we'll proceed.

 2             At this moment, Mr. Savic, I would like to thank you very much

 3     for coming to The Hague because it ...

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I said I would like to thank you very much for

 6     coming to The Hague because matters have not changed since my last

 7     consultation with my colleagues, that the Bench has no further questions

 8     for you.  I wish you a safe trip home again.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, we adjourn for the day, and we'll resume

11     on Wednesday, the 15th of July, in Courtroom I, at a quarter past 2.00 in

12     the afternoon.  We stand adjourned.

13                           [The witness withdrew]

14                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.15 p.m.,

15                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 15th day of

16                           July, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.