1 Wednesday, 12 May 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone in and around the
6 courtroom. Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-03-69-T,
9 the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. I would like to move
11 into private session for a short while.
12 [Private session]
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. On the 7th of May, the
12 Prosecution has filed its motion for leave to amend the 65 ter summary
13 for Witness JF-033. Now, this witness is expected to testify very soon.
14 What the Chamber would like to know is whether the Defence, either
15 Stanisic or Simatovic Defence, intends to respond to that motion?
16 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, we were hoping that we could respond
17 orally. Given the lateness of the Prosecution application, we haven't
18 had the opportunity to respond in written form. We have considered the
19 motion and we do oppose it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You do oppose it.
21 Mr. Bakrac.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Likewise, Your Honour. Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Before the motion will be decided upon, an
24 opportunity will be given for an oral response. Now, since you
25 indicated, Mr. Jordash, that you would oppose that decision, the Chamber
1 would like to offer some guidance in this matter.
2 First of all, the purpose of a summary under Rule 65 ter is to
3 provide the Defence with notice as to the facts on which each witness
4 will testify and is given under circumstances where the content of that
5 testimony is not yet otherwise known to the other party.
6 I will also give some facts chronologically which may assist in
7 better understanding the issue. On the 17th of June, 2007, the
8 Prosecution tendered the entirety of the witness's testimony in the
9 Milosevic case with an ex parte annex. Then on the 9th of July, 2007,
10 both Defence teams responded, objecting to the Prosecution's motion, but
11 they did not specifically address the 65 ter summary of Witness JF-033.
12 On the 28th of April of 2008, two years ago, the ex parte status
13 of the annex to the Prosecution's motion of the 17th of June, 2007
14 lifted, in which the Prosecution provided a summary of the witness's
15 evidence which indicated that the Prosecution intended to rely on the
16 entirety of the witness's testimony in the Milosevic case.
17 The Defence teams have not responded to this matter following the
18 lifting of the status of the annex. Finally, the Prosecution's motion of
19 the 7th of May, 2010, provided an amended 65 ter summary, so that the
20 procedural record would be complete in this respect.
21 The Chamber would like the parties to keep this in mind when
22 responding to the motion, a motion which exclusively seeks to amend the
23 65 ter summary. Those are the procedural matters I would like to briefly
24 deal with.
25 As far as an oral response is concerned, I don't know whether
1 we'll have time today, but if we would find time and the Chamber is
2 thinking in terms of a response, oral response of not more than four or
3 five minutes, would you be able to give such a response, Mr. Jordash?
4 MR. JORDASH: If it was towards the end of the day, that would be
5 perfectly fine. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, we won't start with it immediately.
7 Mr. Bakrac, same question to you?
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will discuss it with
9 my learned friend Mr. Jordash, and in order to save time, perhaps he will
10 be able to articulate our position too.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.
12 Then the next witness to be called will testify with voice
13 distortion, face distortion, and pseudonym. Mr. Hoffmann.
14 MR. HOFFMANN: That's correct, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then, has the voice distortion been prepared? It
16 has. Then could the witness be brought into the courtroom.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Witness JF-038. I call you
19 Witness JF-038 because you will testify with protective measures; that
20 is, no one will see your face, no one will hear your voice outside this
21 courtroom, and we'll not --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- call you by your own name but by this pseudonym.
24 Before you give evidence the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require that
25 you make a solemn declaration. May I invite you to make that declaration
1 of which the text is now handed out to you.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
3 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, JF-038. Please be seated.
5 Witness JF-038, you'll first be examined by Mr. Hoffmann.
6 Mr. Hoffmann is counsel for the Prosecution.
7 Mr. Hoffmann, please proceed.
8 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 WITNESS: JF-038
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Examination by Mr. Hoffmann:
12 Q. And good afternoon, Witness.
13 A. Good afternoon.
14 Q. As the Judges have mentioned, the Court has ordered certain
15 protective measures with respect to you and your evidence here today.
16 These include the use of a pseudonym as well as distortion of your voice
17 and image.
18 MR. HOFFMANN: And I would first ask the Court Usher to call up
19 the pseudonym sheet on the screen, which is 65 ter 5304.
20 Q. And Witness, once the document appears on the screen in front of
21 you, I will just ask you to look at the witness name given there and the
22 date of birth and to confirm whether that's your name and your date of
24 A. Yes, these are my details.
25 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders this
1 pseudonym sheet into evidence under seal.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P408, under seal,
4 Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: P408 is admitted under seal. Please proceed.
6 MR. HOFFMANN:
7 Q. Sir, do you recall giving testimony before this Tribunal on
8 31st March and 3 and 4 April 2006
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And after arriving here in The Hague and in preparation for your
11 testimony today, did you have an opportunity to review audio recordings
12 of your testimony in that case?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And if you were asked the same questions today that you were
15 asked in the Martic case, would you today give the same answers in
17 A. Well, I certainly would, except that since a lot of time has gone
18 by, I may forget something, but I remember what happened. I remembered
19 everything that occurred.
20 Q. But when you reviewed your audio recordings, just to clarify,
21 there was nothing incorrect when you listened to your prior testimony?
22 A. No.
23 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, the Prosecution at this time tenders
24 the prior testimony of this witness. It's, in fact, three transcripts of
25 his testimony in the Martic case. Currently they are uploaded with three
1 different 65 ter numbers, which is 5130 to 5132. If the Chamber would
2 prefer, we could also merge them, of course. Those should be admitted
3 under seal in light of the protective measures and in light of the fact
4 that the during the previous testimony some parts were given in closed
6 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections? No objections. I think that all
7 the pages are numbered and we find dates on it, so better to have them
8 under one exhibit number. That exhibit number would be, Madam Registrar?
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, I just need to correct the
10 transcript for the previous one. So pseudonym sheet 5304 is not P408,
11 under seal; it's P419, under seal. I apologise. And for these --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then the same applies in relation now to P419, that
13 it is admitted under seal.
14 THE REGISTRAR: And the next exhibit will be P420, under seal.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P420 is admitted into evidence and is comprised of
16 the pages 3017 up to and including P3058, testimony dated the
17 31st of March, 2006; the pages 3059 up to and including 3130, that is the
18 testimony of the 3rd of April, 2006; and pages 3131 up to and including
19 3176, being the testimony in the Martic case of the 4th of April, 2006
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The admission is under seal.
23 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you. Your Honours, during the Martic
24 testimony, two exhibits were admitted into evidence and the Prosecution
25 has asked in its 92 ter motion that these be admitted into this case as
1 related exhibits. As indicated prior to the session, the Prosecution has
2 prepared an updated list of persons the witness has in the past referred
3 to and may refer to today. This is now 65 ter 5303 and would replace the
4 earlier 65 ter 2823. And the second exhibit is a chart drawn by the
5 witness during the Martic testimony; it is 65 ter 2824. I would ask that
6 these be, too, admitted into evidence. The list of persons should be
7 admitted under seal.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against amending or replacing the
9 original exhibit under 65 ter list? Yes. I got handed out just a minute
10 before this session still a list with ERN number 0675-6632 which still
11 bears the number 2823, not 5303. What went wrong?
12 MR. HOFFMANN: That is just a technical issue on our side. It
13 should, in fact, refer to 65 ter 5303.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the ERN number I just read, is that the
15 new list --
16 MR. HOFFMANN: That is the new list that I just distributed.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The new list with the date the 12th of May, 2010,
18 but still with the wrong number on it.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes. We can certainly correct that --
20 JUDGE ORIE: You are invited to, if you change these kind of
21 things, that you change them completely. But there are no objections.
22 The list of names, 65 ter 5303, would be, Madam Registrar?
23 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P421, under seal,
24 Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P421 is admitted under seal. Just a second, please.
1 Yes, then the chart, and there's no need to have that admitted under
2 seal, would receive, Madam Registrar, number?
3 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 2824 becomes Exhibit P422, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P422 is admitted into evidence. I already hereby
5 grant permission to replace the uploaded 65 ter 5303, which is admitted
6 under seal, to have it replaced if only the 65 ter number at the bottom
7 of the page is replaced by the accurate number, which is 5303 instead of
8 2823. Please proceed.
9 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour. I would ask the
10 Court Usher to hand out a copy of Exhibit P421, that is the list of
11 names, to the witness, so if at any time he needs to refer to one of
12 these people, he could do so with that list on his desk. And I've
13 provided also the same list also to the Defence prior to court.
14 In addition, I briefly would like to call up another
15 65 ter exhibit, which is 65 ter 5133. It is a map from the wider Knin
16 area. I have provided copies of that extra map to the Chamber and the
17 Defence prior to court, and I've heard of no objections prior to court of
18 that map being admitted into evidence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: The map which is, by the way, a rather modern map of
20 2003, and, therefore, does not reflect the situation at the time, most
21 likely, but if there are no objections, Madam Registrar, the number of
22 this map would be?
23 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P423, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: P423 is admitted into evidence. The witness can
25 keep the list and if he wants to refer to any of these persons, he can do
1 so by referring to this list. Please proceed.
2 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour. Just one note on that
3 list. Previously the witness indicated that the three names listed at
4 the bottom of that page, there would be no issue naming those in public
5 session. He is more concerned about the people that are numbered on the
6 first part.
7 Q. Witness, I will now read a short summary of your prior testimony
8 in the interest of the public following this trial. Although it's not
9 considered evidence in this case, I ask you to carefully listen to that
11 MR. HOFFMANN: JF-038 was sent with a delegation of the Ministry
12 of Interior of the Socialist Federal Republic
13 May 1991, to the Knin area on a mission, following an agreement between
14 the SFRY and the Croatian republic. The group's main assignment was to
15 calm down the tensions between the Croatian and the Serbian sides that
16 were clashing at the time. Officially, that group were cease-fire
17 monitors. The group consisted of members of the federal state security
18 and the federal public security service. During the mission, the witness
19 and his colleagues learned about the role which Milan Martic and the JNA
20 played in the creation of the Serb autonomous region, the SAO of Krajina.
21 The witness has described the persecution of the Croat population
22 in the region by Milan Martic and his men. Milan Martic established a
23 Serb police station in Knin and appointed himself commander. In
24 addition, Martic organised the process by which the borders of the
25 SAO Krajina were demarcated. The JNA assisted this process. First,
1 barricades were erected, separating Serb and Croat villages. The Serb
2 barricades were manned by police officers under Martic's control and
3 reserve policemen that were local Serb villagers.
4 The witness also testified to the expulsion of many hundreds of
5 Croats from Knin by Milan Martic and his police forces in the summer of
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me. We need to correct
8 something. We cannot refer to 100.000, that's a bit of a mistake.
9 MR. HOFFMANN: There may have been a translation --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because in Knin there weren't
11 100.000 Croats, in Knin and the surrounding area, that is.
12 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, sir. It may have been a -- either my
13 misspelling or a translation error. What I said is, I referred to many
14 hundreds of Croats. Not thousands. May I proceed?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I heard was 100.000 Croats,
16 so ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: Whomever made the mistake, it's now corrected.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: JF-038 further testified about the presence of the
20 accused Jovica Stanisic and the Serbian state security in the
21 SAO Krajina. The witness also learned about the presence of
22 Captain Dragan in Knin and the training of Knindzas at the Knin fortress,
23 as well as the training of the Krajina police at the training centre at
24 Golubic, near Knin. He also met with Ratko Mladic, at the time a JNA
25 officer in Knin.
1 JF-038 was sent on another similar mission to Eastern Slavonia
2 and Baranja in the late summer and fall of 1991. And finally, JF-038
3 described the process by which the MUP of Serbia seized control of the
4 federal MUP in Belgrade
5 MUP of Serbia
6 in that take-over.
7 Q. Witness, during your testimony in the Martic case, and that is on
8 31st March 2006
9 mission to the SAO Krajina, that there were three groups sent by the
10 federal MUP. Each of these groups including members of the public and
11 the state security service of the federal MUP. You testified that you
12 were sent to troubled spots where possible conflicts would arise between
13 Serbs and Croats; more specifically, to the areas of Gospic, Plitvice and
14 Knin. Your own group went to the Knin area. You describe the trip to
15 Knin in May 1991, by helicopter, during --
16 A. I apologise. We did not travel by helicopter to Knin, but rather
17 from Sibenik to Knin. To Sibenik we got by car. There was a major lapse
18 there of some sort.
19 Q. Witness, I was just about to come to the next topic, which is the
20 day when you travelled by helicopter with Admiral Zec from the JNA to
21 Knin, by helicopter, and how he was pointing at the Knin fortress and
22 then later mentioned how the Knindzas were trained by Captain Dragan.
23 And my question to you is, if you found out at some point later the full
24 name of Captain Dragan? And if so, if you could give it to the Court.
25 A. All of that is true. I learned about Captain Dragan much later,
1 his real first and last names, but at this time the Admiral just
2 mentioned this was Captain Dragan. And later on, in Belgrade, I learned
3 that his name was Vasiljkovic, that his real last name was Vasiljkovic.
4 Q. Sir, in your prior testimony, you refer to the group of Knindzas
5 and Arkan's men, and that is transcript 3061. My question to you, can
6 you clarify whether these two groups or units were two distinct groups?
7 A. When we flew by helicopter above the Knin fortress, Admiral Zec
8 told us that we can see below the fortress where a certain Captain Dragan
9 was training the Knindzas and members of the Ministry of the Interior, or
10 rather, the Krajina police. And he also said specifically that that
11 group comprised Knindzas, the so-called Knindzas, and some members and
12 some units belonging to Arkan's group.
13 Q. Was there any talk among you and your colleagues about generally
14 who would be trained at Knin by Captain Dragan?
15 A. Well, we did not talk about that when we were in the helicopter,
16 but later on we exchanged views about this, us, the members of the group,
17 who this might be and what members of what these were. We had occasion
18 to meet these men in Knin. These were men who had some sort of black
19 uniform, black shirts, and a bandana around their head and there was some
20 insignia saying "Knindza" on them. As we walked in Knin, around Knin, we
21 could see -- we could single out individuals who looked different than
22 regular people who lived in Knin.
23 Q. At transcript page 3162, you testified in the Martic case that
24 Captain Dragan came to the area to train special units of the
25 SAO Krajina. Do you have any knowledge on how it was possible for
1 Captain Dragan to come to Knin for such a training?
2 A. I don't have any specific knowledge about him, but it is certain
3 that he must have gone there by invitation. He couldn't just go there on
4 his own, without someone inviting him. I can speculate, and there were
5 also discussions amongst us who were in this group because to us he was a
6 person we didn't know, so we were trying to guess who he was or who he
7 might be and where he had come from.
8 There were opinions, some amongst us thought that he had spent
9 some time in Australia
10 Knin from Australia
11 of those facts and based on my own personal knowledge and the discussions
12 I had with the group, Legija Ulemek was brought to the service to be a
13 leader of a special unit of the Serbian MUP. So we concluded that
14 perhaps he too came there with someone's approval or invitation, that
15 that's how he must have come to the country, or rather, to Knin to train
16 the Knindzas.
17 Q. During your Martic testimony on 3 April 2006, you did testify to
18 meetings with the Croatian side and then later on with Milan Martic to
19 agree on a prisoner exchange. You testified that Martic referred to some
20 detention premises in Knin, and that is at transcript 3099 [Realtime
21 transcript read in error "1399"]. Later on, you also talked to Croats
22 that were released during that agreed exchange, and how they reported
23 about being detained in Knin and being mistreated during their detention.
24 MR. HOFFMANN: I would ask that we now see 65 ter 1916 on the
25 screen. It is a BBC summary of a news clip from 4 April 1991 regarding a
1 proposed prisoner exchange between the Knin police and the Croatian
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, for the record, I didn't follow you
4 when you spoke the words, but transcript 1399 must be -- is that 3199?
5 MR. HOFFMANN: It should read transcript 3099. I apologise.
6 JUDGE ORIE: 3099. Thank you.
7 MR. HOFFMANN:
8 Q. Sir, when the translation of that news clip comes up, I would ask
9 you if you had a chance to review this BBC report prior to your testimony
11 A. I really cannot read this nor can I see the content. It's too
12 small. Even if I take my glasses off, it's still too small. The print
13 is too fine, I can't read it. Now it's better.
14 Q. Do you recall having reviewed this document prior to you coming
15 to court today?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And although this report dates slightly before your arrival in
18 Knin, would you say that the gist of this report with regard to the
19 prisoner exchange between the Krajina police under Martic and the
20 Croatian authorities is consistent with your own experience of such
22 A. Well, I can describe my own case that had to do with these
23 exchanges, but also based on statements given by the prisoners who said
24 that they were kept in some basement at the police station in Knin
25 without the basic needs, sanitary conditions, and this can be interpreted
1 to be, in fact, in correlation with what is stated here in the
2 BBC programme.
3 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders this exhibit,
4 65 ter 1916, into evidence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
6 Madam Registrar, the number would be?
7 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P424, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P424 is admitted into evidence.
9 MR. HOFFMANN:
10 Q. Witness, you just referred to how you were told by prisoners
11 about their detention at the basement of the police station in Knin. Did
12 you at any time get permission from Milan Martic to inspect any of the
13 possible detention facilities in Knin?
14 A. No, we did not. Although while the prisoners were still in
15 detention in the prison, we asked to see them, to see where they were
16 detained, but we weren't allowed to, and even later on we were not
17 allowed to go and inspect those rooms, the premises. But based on the
18 statement given by these prisoners, because we took them to Drnis in our
19 car, according to what they said to us, those conditions were very poor.
20 There was no sanitation of any sort. There was no room for a normal life
21 for a prisoner. They said that they did not even have the toilet or
22 running water, and some guards would just bring some water for them to
24 MR. HOFFMANN: I would ask that we see the next exhibit,
25 65 ter 1536, on the screen. The ERN is 0113-3713. It is a document
1 about the prison facilities in Knin.
2 Q. And, Witness, the question again, did you have a chance to review
3 this document prior to coming to court today?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. And can you briefly describe what this document is about?
6 A. Well, there is mention there of opening some facilities in Knin
7 where prisoners and detainees could be held, convicts, but there weren't
8 any convicts really, rather war -- prisoners of war and providing normal
9 conditions for them to stay there as detainees.
10 Q. Do you have any idea when this document could have been written?
11 A. Well, it is possible that it was a little before our arrival. I
12 know of these four prisoners that we managed to exchange, that was the
13 object of our mission, but there were other detainees there because
14 arrests were a daily occurrence. People were detained and brought in
15 from the front line or from -- just picked up from their homes and
16 villages, I really don't know exactly, but it was at that time, either
17 before we arrived there or during our mission in Knin.
18 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders this exhibit
19 into evidence. That is 65 ter 1536.
20 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Madam Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P425, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: P425 is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Q. Witness, during your Martic testimony, you also talked about the
25 training of members of the Krajina police at Golubic, not far away from
1 Knin. And that is at transcript 3050 on 31st March 2006.
2 MR. HOFFMANN: I would ask that we see the next exhibit,
3 65 ter 1269, on the screen. It starts with ERN 0280-4583. This document
4 is dated in Knin, 27 May 1991
5 Q. And, Witness, the same question here, did you have a chance to
6 review this document prior to coming to court today?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. HOFFMANN: And if we can please go to the end of the
9 document. I think it's on page 2 of both versions.
10 Q. And if you would be so kind just to read out who signed the
12 A. I do not see the signature here but I see the name typed there,
13 it says Captain Dragan Vasiljkovic, and I see also that his name was
14 added later on, the last name. In other words, it wasn't the same
15 typewriter that was used. It was only Captain Dragan originally, and
16 then the name, the last name was added later on, it was typed on a
17 different typewriter.
18 Q. This document relates to the training centres and mentions the
19 Knin fortress and the camp in Golubic. Given the date of the document
20 and its content on the training facilities, would you say that this
21 document in its report is consistent with your own knowledge of the
22 mentioned topics?
23 A. Yes, and this document refers to the time when we were there in
24 the field.
25 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders this exhibit
1 into evidence.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we object to this
4 document being admitted. The witness noticed himself that this document
5 has a problem. There's a visible problem of authenticity; in other
6 words, something was added on to the second page. We see that it was
7 typed on two different typewriters, and also the document bears no
8 signature, so that, in our view, the document is not authentic and we
9 object to its being admitted into evidence.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, could you inform the Chamber where the
11 document comes from.
12 MR. HOFFMANN: Certainly, Your Honour. This document was
13 received through one of the analysts of the Tribunal from the Croatian
14 state archive on 7 June 2004
15 or not the last name of Captain Dragan has been added later on, I think
16 it's clear that with a typewriter sometimes the font is different, but
17 even assuming that the word "Vasiljkovic" was added later, in our
18 submission, it actually would only support that the document as such, at
19 least without that last name, is authentic. Otherwise it would have been
20 set up as a complete forgery.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now authenticity can be challenged in two ways.
22 First, that the whole of the document is a fraud, is a forgery; and the
23 other one is that the document has been tampered with. Now, you say, if
24 I understand you well, since it was not a complete fraud, the fact that
25 it was tampered with is convincing evidence that -- I have difficulties
1 in understanding your argument.
2 MR. HOFFMANN: Maybe I wasn't clear. It may well have been, I
3 don't see it that way, but I'm just taking the point for a second of the
4 Defence, that something was added. I think the -- if we look at the
5 addressees of the recipients of the document at the bottom of the
6 document, they seem to appear in a similar typewriter than the last name
7 of Vasiljkovic. So it may well have been that at the time this document
8 was compiled, this information was added, and it's certainly the case
9 that we got this document as we received it from the Croatian state
10 archives. But I certainly didn't want to -- or didn't agree that it is,
11 in fact, tampered.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You say, as a matter of fact, that the addressees
13 are in this apparently put in there by the same typewriter, is that --
14 MR. HOFFMANN: No. All I'm saying is that it was not done with a
15 word processor, it wasn't printed with a printer, as we are used to this
16 these days. It was printed or typed with a typewriter, and we see at
17 different parts of this document a different font, and this is only
18 natural happening with a typewriter at the time.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You said: "If you look at the bottom ... they seem
20 to appear in a similar typewriter than the last name of Vasiljkovic." So
21 apparently your suggestion is that that was added by the same means as
22 the name that was added.
23 MR. HOFFMANN: I apologise. I didn't mean it was typed at a
24 later stage, but it appears to be in a similar font for whatever reason.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the font of a typewriter, first of all, at the
1 time I don't know what kind of typewriter this was, but you had the ones
2 where you could change the fonts within five minutes, the famous IBM
3 ones, but your suggestion apparently is that the added family name is
4 similar to the -- is typed in a way similar to the name which is not in
5 the same typewriting as the Captain Dragan as put at the bottom of this
6 document. Is that correctly understood?
7 MR. HOFFMANN: I think we can all see that it's at least in a
8 different font. But in the interest of time, I wouldn't insist on the
9 admission right now if Your Honours have some doubts about the
10 authenticity and maybe get it marked for identification and later deal
11 with it. In our submission, it rather goes to the weight, but I
12 certainly don't want to spend more time while the witness is present.
13 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, may I add my objection and endorsement
14 of the Simatovic team's objection. Having listened to the argument, we
15 also submit it doesn't have sufficient indices of authenticity. The fact
16 that there are obviously two different type fonts indicates that, at the
17 very least, it's been made by -- on two different occasions, and given
18 that the different type font relates to such significant information,
19 that is, the people who are to receive the document, we submit that it
20 ought not to be admitted.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, one of the striking elements in the
22 typewriting, apart from the name Vasiljkovic, is that the small letter A
23 is unusually small, that is, that it comes above the general bottom line.
24 If you look at the word "jedan" [phoen] in the last "teksta dostavlja"
25 you see that the A is well above what is the main bottom line for all the
1 other letters. Do you see that?
2 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now, we see the same in the words "Kapetan Dragan"
4 which therefore strongly suggests that the text typed below where there's
5 no signature is typed with the same machine as the original. Now, it
6 seems that in the name Vasiljkovic we have a similar feature of an A
7 coming slightly above the general bottom line of the other letters, which
8 at least is a first indication that all of it would have been typed
9 perhaps by the same machine, at least with the same -- but not at the
10 same time because apparently the intensity of the ink or the -- how clean
11 the letters may have been was different when the word "Vasiljkovic" was
12 typed in. So this all strongly suggests and -- but I'm not an expert in
13 this field, that the same typewriter was used but at a different time or
14 at least in a different circumstances, as the ink ribbon apparently not
15 being the same.
16 Have you inquired as to what explains this difference, which is
17 very obvious, if you look at it?
18 MR. HOFFMANN: No. There is no follow-up and I would not expect
19 anyone in the Croatian state archives, where we got the document from,
20 that they would be able to explain, you know, the issues of that document
21 that they collected at some time. But, if I may add, even assuming that
22 the last name and the recipients of that document may have been added,
23 there may be valid -- good reasons for it that initially the document and
24 its contents was typed up, it was handed over to some secretary and then
25 that information was added. In our submission, this may be well an issue
1 for the weight but not necessarily to bar the admission of this document.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So you say if it comes to speculation, that has its
3 effect on weight rather than on authenticity, because you are coming up
4 with some reasons, I could invent five other reasons why, and your
5 reasons are not per se better than mine.
6 Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted to add
8 a few more things that indicate how troublesome this document is. I'm
9 sorry, could I just have a moment.
10 Once again, I apologise, Your Honours. In view of the content of
11 the text, the person that we are speaking of, Dragan Vasiljkovic, speaks
12 Ekavian Serbian. This entire text is written in Ijkavian and that casts
13 a completely different light on the content of the text. Also, the
14 heading says to the secretary of the SUP. Over here we have four
15 addressees and only the second one is the chief of SUP. Also, it is not
16 logged anywhere, it is not registered anywhere, so all of this casts a
17 completely different light on this document. In addition to the formal
18 elements, could you please take into account these objections that we
19 have in view of the way the text is written. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, whether the language used by the person who is
21 supposed to be the author, or at least the one who signed, where they use
22 it -- usually speaks a different dialect is a -- whether that's anything
23 which has to do with authenticity is another matter.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: The document will be marked for identification.
1 Madam Registrar, the number would be number.
2 THE REGISTRAR: This will be document P426, marked for
3 identification, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status for awhile.
5 Now, Mr. Hoffmann, you introduced this and the only question you
6 put to the witness whether his memory corresponds with what is found
7 here. Therefore, it seems that that document in itself, at least at this
8 moment, has not any added value to -- apart from that this is what the
9 witness remembers.
10 MR. HOFFMANN: Well, he did confirm that it's from the same
11 time-frame that he was himself in the area when he himself saw and heard
12 about Captain Dragan being involved in these issues.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then you rely on the authenticity also in
14 respect of the date. We'll have a look at it and for the time being it's
15 marked for identification. You may proceed.
16 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Later on, Witness, during a meeting with Milan Martic in his
18 office in Knin, Martic stated to you that the Serbs of the Krajina wanted
19 to live in one single country with all the other Serbs from Yugoslavia
20 including Serbia
21 3 April 2006
22 time that his goal and that of the Croatia Serbs was to establish a
23 district to unite all Serbs in Croatia
24 And I'll play now a video-clip from 65 ter 4718. This clip runs
25 from minute 10.52 to minute 17.14. It's an interview of Milan Martic at
1 the Serb TV Knin on 4 July 1993
2 number 2, and the same clip is marked in e-court as 65 ter 4718.2.
3 [Video-clip played]
4 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Milan Martic gave a statement for
5 Belgrade Television which was broadcast in last night's 'Hronika srpskih
6 krajina.' We broadcast it again now, since our viewers did not have
7 electricity at the time."
8 MR. HOFFMANN: Sorry, Your Honours, I just forgot to mention one
9 thing. We will see during part of the video that the image and the audio
10 is distorted for a few seconds and then the interview will continue.
11 That's just the way we received this material. I just wanted to give a
12 warning up ahead. And would like to start the video again.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll have a look at it. Please restart the
15 [Video-clip played]
16 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Reporter: Exactly three years
17 separate us, dear viewers, from the beginning of the Serbian resistance
18 to the newly established authorities in Croatia. On the 3rd of July,
19 1990, Milan Martic and his comrades made it clear to Tudjman and his
20 minister Boljkovac that they did not accept the Ustasha symbols or the
21 new Ustasha order. Mr. Martic, how do you assess and evaluate those
22 events now, after three years?
23 "Martic: Well, you see, as you have said, it is three years to
24 this day that Croatia
25 make such a move as we did, surely it required at least some courage. We
1 decided to make such a move simply in order to create a turning point in
2 history, in order for the Serbs not to rise to revolt always attacking
3 their own gendarmerie and police, in order to prevent that. Our
4 preparations, which took place over the year prior to the events and
5 which hardly anyone knew about, culminated on that 3rd of July, 1990,
6 when we presented a letter, an open letter ... and told Minister
7 Boljkovac loudly and clearly that there is no way we were going to be
8 part of a legislative system which would terrorise their own people. All
9 the people knew that, and I think that that was a decisive moment in this
10 fight of ours for survival in these areas.
11 "Reporter: It is possible, Mr. Martic, to draw from these events
12 a conclusion that is relevant today? Namely, you were all united at the
13 time, both the people and the police, the Serb Democratic Party
14 leadership and the key people in the political life of the then
15 SAO Krajina.
16 "Martic: Well, there are very few differences among us. We all
17 want to have our Republic of Serbian Krajina, but there was that
18 fanaticism. Such mutual agreement between the leadership of the Serbian
19 Democratic Party, the officials on all positions, and us from the police,
20 that was something equalling fanaticism. Our legendary late academician
21 Jovan Raskovic cannot be omitted. His contribution to all of this is
22 great. He mobilised people's spirit, our spiritual leader. I personally
23 loved him as my own father, and to this day, I keep his picture in my
24 office. He mobilised people's spirit and the movement started. So the
25 Serbian Democratic Party was the movement. Milan Babic, who undoubtedly
1 played a huge role, he was in constant communication with us and the
2 Serbian Democratic Party, and we were worked practically along parallel
3 lines, but absolutely along the same lines.
4 "Reporter: In the war, as in any other war, there is crime and
5 war profiteering and corruption. Do you manage to fight it, to deal with
7 "Martic: Listen, no war, not even this war of ours, was without
8 profiteering, corruption, and all those negative aspects. Of course, we
9 can fight that within the limits of our capabilities as much as we can.
10 There are certain problems. We're working on solving them, you know,
11 certain problems, like certain dominance of war time revolutionary law
12 and the neglect of civil law and similar, but with a strong police, we
13 should protect the legal order, we do provide that in any case. I do not
14 wish to enumerate now how many criminal reports we submitted and things
15 like that. A lot has been done. However, I want that we have as little
16 work as possible, and I endeavour that all other government structures do
17 their job and prevent things from reaching us. Because, you know, if
18 everyone else does their job, then there is less work for us and the
19 legal system, in any case, functions more optimally.
20 "Reporter: What is the situation in the theatre of war today?
21 "Martic: Well, very favourable. You see the lines are stable,
22 the people in that motive hold a firm belief that we should definitely
23 have our own territory, that we should have our republic of the Serbian
24 Krajina which we should endeavour to join with other Serbian states. Of
25 course, these borders are fairly stable, and in this regard, all our
1 troubles which burden us fade into the background, and by that I mean the
2 general poverty and the difficult life in this region at the moment, but
3 we also understand those who help us from the outside that ... that the
4 situation is similar over there. However, the ultimate goal, to have
5 one's own state which will be outside that infamous Croatia, outside
6 their genocidal democracy, is of course so huge that everything else
7 fades into the background. I am convinced that we will know how to
8 preserve this, to preserve what we fought for and won in blood, what we
9 liberated, and that we will definitely finalise those ultimate borders,
10 that we will have our state which will be Serbian land, free for all
11 goodwill citizens, but let be it known in the first place that this is
12 our territory and not territory for some recent comers.
13 "Reporter: Thank you Mr. Martic.
14 "Martic: Thank you."
15 MR. HOFFMANN:
16 Q. Witness, do you recognise the location of this interview?
17 A. Yes, it is the fort of Knin. Above the town of Knin itself.
18 Q. And having listened to this interview of Milan Martic from
19 July 1993, is that consistent with the way Martic expressed his goals in
20 1991 when you personally met him?
21 A. Yes. It is practically the same speech.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you. Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders
23 this clip into evidence. It is from the same video compilation as an
24 earlier admitted exhibit, P12, and this one is marked as 65 ter 4718.2 in
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
2 MR. JORDASH: There is an objection and the objection is this:
3 That I find it difficult to work out precisely what it is the Prosecution
4 seek to demonstrate through this video. If it is the same speech that
5 the witness heard, then the witness has given his evidence. If there's
6 something else on this video that my learned friend actually wants in
7 addition to what the witness has said, then we should hear about it,
8 otherwise, we are simply duplicating evidence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let me just try to understand what the ...
10 Mr. Hoffmann asked the witness whether what was said here in 1993 is the
11 same as what the witness heard him saying in 1991. Of course, that would
12 be at a different occasion and would be rather about the consistency of
13 the aims pursued by Mr. Martic. So, therefore, I have some difficulties
14 in understanding whether it just duplicates the evidence because it
15 creates a time-line. Therefore, I have difficulties in understanding
16 your argument, Mr. Jordash, before I give an opportunity to Mr. Hoffmann
17 to ...
18 MR. JORDASH: Well, perhaps I can put my objection slightly
19 differently. As I understood what the witness was testifying to, he
20 testified to Mr. Martic giving a speech in 1991 which endorsed Martic's
21 view that there should be a link between Serbian territories. I think
22 that was the evidence. The speech that we've just heard in the video
23 seems to have been somewhat different, which is that Martic, in 1993, was
24 expressing a view that the ultimate goal was for the Croatian Serbs to
25 have their own state. And then the witness confirmed somehow that the
1 two views were the same. So my objection -- I see Mr. Hoffmann shaking
2 his head, so perhaps I should --
3 JUDGE ORIE: We are now -- we have now entered the realm of
4 interpretation of the content rather than admissibility.
5 MR. JORDASH: I withdraw the objection.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And apart from that, of course, the witness
7 has identified the location on which the interview took place.
8 Mr. Hoffmann, I'm looking at the clock.
9 MR. HOFFMANN: I'm happy to have a break now once this clip may
10 be admitted.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I've heard of no other objections.
12 Madam Registrar, the clip would receive number?
13 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P426, Your Honours -- P427,
14 I apologise.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P427 is admitted into evidence. We'll have a break
16 and we'll resume at five minutes past 4.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 3.36 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 4.12 p.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, you may proceed.
20 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. Witness, just prior to the break we talked about the -- how
22 Milan Martic expressed his views and his goals about the RSK and
23 unification with other Serbian states. My question to you is, did you at
24 the time, that is, in the early 1990s, hear any other Serb politician
25 make similar statements?
1 A. Well, after that freedom of expression and after the multiparty
2 system was introduced, several politicians spoke that way. First of all,
3 it was the president of Serbia
4 speeches made at different rallies; Seselj, Draskovic, as far as I can
5 remember. Other persons too, but, well, it was this euphoria after
6 communism and after this one-party system. People felt this need to
7 express their own views and their own personal convictions.
8 Q. So did I understand you correctly that in 1990, 1991, you did
9 have a chance to hear any speech of Seselj as well, either live or on TV,
10 and I'd appreciate if you'd just indicate whether yes or no?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. HOFFMANN: The Prosecution will play now another clip. This
14 is from video exhibit P18, which is marked for identification. It's the
15 BBC interview with Vojislav Seselj in March 1995. That clips runs from
16 minute 11.33 to minute 12.48, and for the booth, this is clip 3.
17 [Video-clip played]
18 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "LS: Can you tell us about that
19 moment when you realised that the Serbian people would have to take up
20 arms to defend themselves, their freedom, and their right to remain in
22 "VS: I realised that in May 1990. I happened to be in America
23 when I heard that Tudjman had won the election, and it became clear to me
24 that war was inevitable. As soon as I returned Belgrade, I established
25 the Serbian Chetnik Movement because of it. One year earlier, the
1 renowned Chetnik commander from World War II, Vojvoda Momcilo Djujic,
2 declared me a new Serbian Chetnik Vojvoda. He was the last one alive and
3 wanted the Chetnik tradition to be kept. Chetniks were Serbian freedom
4 fighters from the times of the Turkish occupation, in the Balkan wars,
5 and the First and Second World Wars. We established the Serbian Chetnik
6 Movement but we kept repeating: 'We are ready for everything, although
7 we would like to avoid war at all costs and resolve the situation in a
8 peaceful manner.' We kept repeating: 'The Croats can go, but can only
9 take those territories where they are a majority. Where they are a
10 minority, they cannot take away the territories.'"
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, before we proceed, has the transcript
12 under the video be verified, because there was -- I think I read in the
13 transcript a Russian occupation, whereas it was translated by
14 interpreters as the Turkish occupation. Now, I do not know what the
15 original said. Perhaps I could ask the Simatovic Defence whether they
16 have listened to the original language. Could we play that specific part
17 again and also show the -- it was somewhere in the middle.
18 [Video-clip played]
19 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "VS: And then it became clear to me
20 that war was inevitable. And as soon as I returned to Belgrade, I formed
21 the Serbian Chetnik Movement because of it. One year earlier, the
22 renowned Chetnik commander from World War II, Vojvoda Momcilo Djujic,
23 declared me a new Serbian Chetnik Vojvoda. He was the last one alive and
24 wanted the Chetnik tradition to kept. Chetniks were Serbian freedom
25 fighters from the times of the Turkish occupation, in the Balkan wars and
1 in the First and Second World Wars."
2 JUDGE ORIE: We can stop there. Apparently there's a mistake in
3 the -- because our interpreters now, for the second time with some
4 emphasis, translated as the Turkish occupation whereas the transcript
5 under it reads the Russian occupation. Let's move on, but it's now clear
6 that there is a mistake in this material. By the way, I take it that you
7 have listened and looked to it various times in preparing. These are
8 important matters to notice. Please proceed.
9 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honours. And we'll certainly
10 verify the translation.
11 Q. Witness, having listened to what Seselj expresses during that
12 BBC interview, is that consistent with what you have heard of Seselj in
13 1990 or 1991?
14 A. Well, as far as the portion about the unification and life of the
15 Serbian people, yes. I mean, with minor differences to the left or
16 right, up or down, but generally speaking, that is the essence, the gist.
17 Depending, of course, on the situation where he held a speech, he
18 probably adjusted, whether it was in a province or in the heart of Serbia
19 or in some other part of the country, depending on the area where he held
20 the speech, it would differ a little, but the objective was the same.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: And just for the record, Your Honours may recall
23 that the issue of that exhibit is still pending for admission in line
24 with the submission of the Prosecution of 29 March 2010. And at this
25 time I would just continue with my questioning.
1 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. Yes, my recollection is that we
2 had portions of it played and then we put everything together? If you
3 could assist me in refreshing my memory as to the 29th of March.
4 MR. HOFFMANN: Certainly, Your Honour. The parts of this
5 interview with Vojislav Seselj had been played with various witnesses
6 from the beginning of this trial. The Prosecution from the outset has
7 tendered the whole video into evidence. It has --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now it's clear. It was about parts and the
9 whole of it. Then no action has to be taken, you just continue. Please
11 MR. HOFFMANN: Well, we appreciate, of course, once the motion
12 would be decided, but for now we can continue.
13 Q. Witness, you also testified in the Martic case that among your
14 colleagues during the mission to the SAO Krajina, you remarked on the
15 fact that the Serbian state security service got involved in organising
16 the SAO Krajina state security. And that is at transcript 3078. In that
17 context, you testified that you did see the accused Jovica Stanisic twice
18 in the Knin area in May and June 1991. And I would ask you to briefly
19 tell the Court where exactly did you see Stanisic in May or June 1991 in
21 A. In Knin, whether it was the first time I went there or the second
22 time, I can't remember exactly, but I did see Mr. Jovica Stanisic on one
23 occasion with another person, person number 3, at the restaurant at
24 Slapovi Krka, the Krka waterfalls. I remember that was in the afternoon.
25 And the second time -- or the first time, I'm not sure which was first,
1 we met outside the police building, outside the Knin MUP, but that was
2 just a brief encounter in passing. We exchanged greetings. The same was
3 true of the restaurant because he was sitting in company with some other
4 people. We arrived there to have lunch so we just waved to each other
5 from afar, but in Knin, outside the MUP building, we shook hands but
6 there were no other contacts.
7 However, I did know Mr. Stanisic from before, from Belgrade, but
8 we did not have contact, physical contact. So even this contact in Knin
9 was just a brief exchange of greetings. And I remember that --
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is not sure whether he or I was
11 with person number 2 on the list.
12 MR. HOFFMANN:
13 Q. Sir, if you can just clarify, the interpreters didn't get the
14 last part. Could you repeat with whom you were together on that list
15 when you saw the accused?
16 A. On one occasion when I saw him I was with person number 3. That
17 was at the restaurant. And when we met outside the police station
18 building, the MUP building, whatever it was called then, with person
19 number 2.
20 Q. Thank you. And just for the record, when you refer to numbers,
21 that is from Exhibit P421.
22 Now, Witness, according to your own knowledge at the time in
23 1991, what role or position did Jovica Stanisic have at that time?
24 A. At that time I believe he was the acting chief of state security.
25 Or one of the assistants. I really am not sure. Twenty years have
1 passed and I can't be quite certain.
2 Q. In your Martic testimony also at transcript 3078, you refer to
3 meetings with the Croatian security service in Sibenik, and more
4 precisely with Branko Polizota. He told you that they had information
5 that the Serbian service was involved in the activities in the
6 SAO Krajina and that Serbia
7 on the territory of the SAO Krajina. Did you also have a chance to talk
8 to a certain Vice Vukojevic during your mission to the Krajina?
9 A. At this time Vice Vukojevic was the deputy minister of the
10 interior of the Republic of Croatia
11 meeting, was held with him, the group I was in, which was led by person
12 under number 6, who was the leader of our group and who took us to
14 we arrived in Croatia
15 Vice Vukojevic, in that preliminary conversation, just mentioned
16 that they were aware that the Serbian service was active or present in
18 mean, all of us in the group, that the Croatian side never wanted to
19 actually use the word "Serbian Krajina" or anything of that sort because
20 it avoided using that term. But it did refer specifically to Knin and to
21 SAO Krajina. This was the first official protocol meeting or protocol
22 orientation. Our leader, nor any of us, decided not to go into any
23 further discussions because that would only lead to strained relations
24 and we felt that that would prevent us later on to actually carry out the
25 tasks that we had, so that we avoided discussing details. But we did
1 hear it.
2 Q. Sir, when you said he was referring to the Serbian service, how
3 did you understand that term? As a reference to what?
4 A. Vice Vukojevic said -- he only said that he was aware there was
5 the presence of the Serbian police in Croatia, because Vice Vukojevic was
6 a member of state security, and we members of this service would use the
7 term "presence of the service," whereas they would say "presence of the
8 police." So they would use the term "police presence" for this
9 department of the police.
10 Q. Just to clarify, Witness, if you refer to "service," can you just
11 briefly explain what service you and your colleagues were referring to?
12 A. We members of state security were referring to our own service
13 because we did not interfere in the activities of other interior
14 services, in other words, the regular police. We just dealt with matters
15 that pertained to our service, the state security.
16 Q. Thank you. Witness, in 1991, did the Serbian DB, the Serbian
17 state security, have any legal or official competence or authority to
18 work in the Republic of Croatia
19 A. Under the existing laws and the rules of service the service of
20 one republic was not permitted -- and also out of respect for our
21 colleagues from other republics, so it was not permitted to enter the
22 areas and conduct assignments or missions in another republic. They
23 would always have to inform the other republic and ask for their approval
24 if it was necessary for members of the service of one republic to be
25 present in another republic.
1 In the event that they could not agree, the two republics, we
2 would then interfere as mediators for coming into contact and do the
3 internal affairs work if we assessed that it was necessary for us to
5 Q. Thank you, Witness.
6 MR. HOFFMANN: The Prosecution now plays another short clip and
7 it's actually already admitted. Exhibit P12. It is a short clip of a
8 celebration of the Krajina Security Service Day on 5 July 1993. And for
9 the booth, it's clip 4.
10 [Video-clip played]
11 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "On this day, three years ago, the
12 first large gathering of people and mass protests against the Croatian
13 leadership took place in Knin. The result of those events was a petition
14 signed by the policemen of the then Knin public security station refusing
15 obedience to the pro-Ustasha authorities in Zagreb and refusing to wear
16 markings worn by Ustashas 50 years ago while committing genocide against
17 the Serbian people. The central celebration took place in Knin.
18 Milan Martic, minister of the interior, spoke at the formal events,
19 stressing at the end of his speech that the chequer-board flag can be in
20 Knin only 'over our dead bodies.' Among other speakers addressing the
21 gathering were Goran Hadzic, president of the Republic of Serbian
22 Krajina, and Milan Babic, president of the Knin Municipal Assembly. On
23 the occasion of the Day of Security of the Republic of Serbian Krajina
24 there were issued the 'Serbian rebellions and uprisings' decorations,
25 medals for courage, and certificates of gratitude issued, among others,
1 to Belgrade Radio and Television and the 'Vecernje Novosti' daily."
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, if you leave your microphone open then
3 we'll follow all your conversations.
4 MR. HOFFMANN: I'm just looking at the transcript which may have
5 not caught up all the transcript, as it looks now. I'm wondering if we
6 have to replay the clip. The Court Reporter is shaking her head, so I
7 think I can continue.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if the interpreters have had no problems
9 either, then we can continue. Please proceed.
10 MR. HOFFMANN:
11 Q. Witness, did you recognise any of the people attending the
12 celebration on the clip that you just saw?
13 A. Well, yes, I did. I recognise Mr. Stanisic, Milan Martic,
14 Goran Hadzic. As for the others, I don't remember them anymore. I
15 probably met them in the field, but I can't really be sure.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. HOFFMANN: I'll ask that 65 ter 4719 be brought up on the
18 screen. The ERN starts with 0414-2989.
19 Q. And this is a list of people being awarded by the RSK on the
20 Security Service Day, July 5. And my question to you is if -- having
21 reviewed this document earlier on, if you recognise any names on this
22 list? And we can start with page -- it's only one page in the original.
23 A. I tend to remember persons rather than names, so I couldn't
24 really put together based on the photos and the names here except for
25 Jovica Stanisic here under number 1 on the list, and he is present. The
1 other person, Nebojsa Pavkovic, was not in that video-clip. I don't
2 really know the next name but I can't really put the names and tie them
3 or link them to the picture, the video.
4 Q. Just one more question. If you could look at person listed under
5 number 20.
6 A. Yes, it says there "Dragan Vasiljkovic - Captain Dragan."
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders this exhibit
9 into evidence, which is 65 ter 4719.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 4719 becomes Exhibit P428, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: P428 is admitted into evidence.
13 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 Q. Witness, you testified previously how you met in Knin also with
15 General Ratko Mladic. And during cross-examination in Martic, that is at
16 transcript 3135, you were asked about the KOS. And I just have a short
17 question, if you can explain what KOS
18 A. That's the counter-intelligence service, counter-intelligence
19 service of the army.
20 Q. Was that abbreviation, KOS, used at that time, that is, in 1991?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, I'm now turning to the area of
24 orientation the relevant map in the Court binder would be map 18, already
25 admitted as Exhibit P9.
1 Q. Witness, you briefly indicated already in your Martic testimony
2 that in mid-August 1991, you were sent on a similar mission, this time to
3 the area of Osijek
4 question to you, during that mission to the area of Slavonia and Baranja,
5 did you learn anything about the presence of any paramilitary unit in
6 that area, yes or no?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could you please list any such paramilitary unit, and if you know
9 the respective commander of such units?
10 A. Since I was tasked by my superior as the leader of the group for
12 together with a security man, a police officer who was armed, and in the
13 presence of a security officer, a military security officer who was in
14 charge of that area, together we visited some of the villages near
15 Manastir and in the town itself.
16 A lot of people had moved out of that area and those who remained
17 were mostly the elderly who could not leave their homes. And in our
18 interviews with them, they told us about their problems, that they were
19 afraid because of the presence of some paramilitary units and most of
20 them mentioned and complained about Beli Orlovi, the paramilitary units
21 of Vuk Draskovic, but they probably did not differentiate. They talked
22 about units generally, but the Beli Orlovi, White Eagles and whatnot. So
23 they mentioned also the people, Giska Beli. They also talked about the
24 presence of Chetniks, Chetnik detachments, about Badza's Group or groups,
25 also about the presence of the Frenki's Men, the Red Berets, Badza's
1 Group, so-called, Stojkovic's group. They mentioned
2 some special MUP units and that was it. But most of these people were
3 elderly people, so they couldn't really make a distinction, but I heard
4 from them the problems that they were facing and the people that they
5 encountered. One day, when I was in the barracks in Beli Manastir, the
6 barracks commander, if you want me I can mention his name, but then we
7 would have to go to closed session.
8 Q. In fact, let me take you back just to the groups that you
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If you allow me, I have a comment
12 to make or, rather, an objection, but I would like to say my objection in
13 the -- not in the presence of this witness. I will be very brief.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you want to say it in your own language so
15 we have to invite the witness to leave the courtroom, or?
16 MR. PETROVIC: I can try to do it in English but I would like
17 to --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then, of course, first we would have to
19 inquire whether -- Witness JF-038, do you understand the English
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please take your earphones off.
23 Mr. Petrovic.
24 MR. PETROVIC: Your Honour, it is the notification issue about
25 the essence of charges against my client. Now the witness mentioned for
1 the very first time, as far as I know, the presence of my client's men or
2 something like that in the area of Baranja. We have his statement, we
3 had his testimony in Martic case, we had a proofing note which was
4 done -- which was done yesterday, and there is -- something like that is
5 not mentioned in any of these instances.
6 MR. HOFFMANN: Can I just briefly respond directly?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's first allow Mr. Petrovic to finish.
8 MR. PETROVIC: Just if I can add something more. I can't believe
9 that it is possible that my learned colleague had not asked the question
10 about one of the accused before this Chamber. I'm sure that he put that
11 question. I would be surprised if he did not. And I did not find any
12 evidence that anything which has any connection with my client was to be
13 expected with this witness. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, perhaps before you respond, anything to
15 add, Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: Well, I anticipate -- I do join in the objection.
17 I anticipate what my learned friend will say is that the subject was
18 dealt with --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not speculate on what your learned friend --
20 MR. JORDASH: It's not so much speculate. There is notice of a
21 kind in a previous transcript which relates to when the witness gave
22 evidence previously, but the Prosecution have not included that
23 transcript in their Rule 92 ter application. They have not included it
24 in any proofing note. So by virtue of that, the Defence were effectively
25 told, This is not evidence we are going to lead. Therefore, we have not
1 concerned ourselves with it.
2 Now my learned friend is seeking to go behind that notification,
3 simply lead the evidence without providing any notice to the Defence as
4 to what the witness will say, and I endorse what my learned friend has
5 said. Mr. Hoffmann must have discussed this with the witness during the
6 proofing sessions and has simply decided not to deal with it by
7 disclosing it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you have already responded to what you
9 expected Mr. Hoffmann would say. Let's first verify whether that's his
10 position. Mr. Hoffmann.
11 MR. HOFFMANN: Yeah, I'd tried to cut this discussion very short.
12 There was an earlier proofing session many years ago and an information
13 report was filed on 11 February 2008
14 and it's at paragraphs 16 following. In that proofing note it covers the
15 mission to the SBWS and it mentions all the groups that he just
16 mentioned. Plus I think it is part -- there is no need for a further
17 notice if this witness already testified about the same issues in this
18 very trial, in the first round of trial, so to say, but I would not
19 expect that -- apart from that, we gave them notice in 2008, early 2008,
20 that is, two years ago, that if this witness gave evidence when this
21 trial started the first time, that we then, in addition, have to notify
22 the Defence he may give evidence to the same effect that he did the first
23 time. I'm, to be honest, a bit surprised by that objection.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I would have to verify all these reference to
25 earlier proofing notes. Mr. Petrovic.
1 MR. PETROVIC: Your Honour, if I can add, I'm not aware of any
2 proofing note from 2008.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That raises the issue as to --
4 MR. PETROVIC: Maybe it goes to the situation our Defence team is
5 in, but I simply do not -- that's not disclosed to -- as far as I know, I
6 never find that. And there is not a single reference in all materials,
7 65 ter materials or weekly notifications, nothing refers to a proofing
8 note of 2008. I have never seen it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's take it step by step. The Chamber, of course,
10 has no access to all the material which is available. I just refer to
11 one thing I noticed, that is that in the Martic testimony, the witness
12 was asked about a statement given at an earlier stage, which was not
13 tendered into evidence, is not -- at least is not tendered in this case.
14 We only have the -- unless there's any question about that, but we have
15 only the three transcripts of the Martic case in which reference is made
16 to other statements which we do not have. So, therefore, the Chamber is
17 not in every respect fully aware of what the witness may have said before
18 and whether that was disclosed, yes or no.
19 Now --
20 MR. HOFFMANN: If you allow me --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: -- just to give a brief reference to the earlier
23 testimony in this very case two years ago, and that is on 6 May 2008, on
24 transcript 1119, following. He's specifically asked about paramilitary
25 units and he mentions Badza's Group, Frenki's Men, Frenki Simatovic,
1 Arkan's Men. It has been raised already in this case.
2 JUDGE ORIE: One second. Mr. Stanisic was then assisted by --
3 was represented by Mr. Knoops?
4 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes, he was. But the point is a different one. Of
7 course, I accept --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you say, how could we possibly understand that
9 this would be the subject of -- so there -- at least at that time in the
10 presence of Mr. Knoops, these matters were raised and that was available.
11 So even if it's not in a statement, at least it is on a transcript of
12 that date. Not to say whatever conclusions to be drawn out of that, but
13 I just want to first establish what has happened.
14 MR. JORDASH: Yes. We accept that it is in the transcript, that
15 transcript and we accept there is mention of Frenki's Men in a proofing
16 note of the 11th February 2008. Neither of those things were subject to
17 the Rule 92 ter application. That is what we took as the notice of what
18 this witness would testify about.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honour, if I may quickly respond on this
20 matter. I think it hasn't been a practice in any case, if a witness has
21 given a prior statement or a prior testimony that has been disclosed to
22 the Defence, that the Prosecution is asked to provide a proofing note
23 summarising again what is already in statements or -- and it has been
24 practice in this case that we haven't tendered normally all the
25 statements of witnesses but still led evidence on what the witness have
1 testified prior. It's obvious with witnesses who testify viva voce. We
2 are leading evidence that they have given in prior statements, still they
3 are not part of any 92 ter package, but nobody requires then to -- us to
4 provide additional summary of a statement that is already disclosed to
5 the Defence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we have two matters. The first is disclosure,
7 and the second is notice of what evidence will be elicited from a
8 witness. Let's be clear, sometimes you can disclose statements which you
9 might not consider to elicit the evidence or all of the evidence of the
10 statements disclosed.
11 Now, it seems that we are at a crossroads here because the
12 Defence is aware of previous testimony given and, if I understand you
13 well, now claims how could we expect that this is now to be elicited
14 again because it has not been mentioned after that. So we are more or
15 less in a grey zone between disclosure and notice given of the expected
17 MR. HOFFMANN: If you would allow me just on that notice issue.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: The Defence has just a few moments stated that
20 they would clearly have expected me to ask those questions about the
21 accused. Now being aware that this witness did talk about Frenki's Men
22 before, how could they not expect me to ask about the same evidence?
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, the simple answer is because the 92 ter
24 notice didn't include it, and the 92 ter notice is what we have as our
25 road map as to what the Prosecution are going to have a witness testify
1 to. Or else we will just have to search through hundreds of pages of
2 transcripts and guess at what the Prosecution might want to testify or
3 might want a witness to testify to, additional to that which they've
4 notified in the Rule 92 ter application.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Does the matter appear in your 65 ter summary,
6 Mr. Hoffmann?
7 MR. HOFFMANN: I do think so that it in general terms appears in
8 the 65 ter summary, and then, of course, it's a matter that has been
9 notified to the Defence by the proofing notes and by his prior testimony.
10 And if I may respond on the 92 ter argument, 92 ter means that we are
11 tendering something in writing. So obviously, part of the 92 ter
12 application is the part that we are not dealing explicitly in court.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then --
14 MR. HOFFMANN: So we don't give normally an outline of -- and we
15 have never been asked to give an outline of the areas that we cover.
16 That would be new to me.
17 JUDGE ORIE: At least if that outline is to be found elsewhere
18 because 92 ter is not meant to keep away from the Defence the notice
19 which is usually given under 65 ter. That is, you can expect that
20 evidence will be elicited from this witness in this and this area. Now,
21 if you say 92 ter, that's what we are most likely not deal with
22 extensively in court and, apart from that, especially other areas could
23 be covered, so then it must be clear to the Defence what those other
24 areas could be apart from the 92 ter material. Would you agree with
1 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes, and I think it's clear from our filings and
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now, and then your next step is that you say, well,
4 from the previous testimony and from the proofing note which was
5 disclosed at the time at the first start of this trial, that's where the
6 Defence was put on notice that this is what they could expect. That's
7 your reasoning. Whereas, if I understand the Defence well -- first of
8 all, the status of any activity undertaken at that time, we might have to
9 consider that as well because evidence is not evidence heard by this
10 Chamber. At the same time, the exchange of information between the
11 parties is not necessarily excluded. It's not that we repeat the whole
12 of the -- the out-of-court and the pre-trial matters that were the
13 subject of exchange between the parties.
14 Mr. Jordash.
15 MR. JORDASH: For Your Honours's information, the Prosecution's
16 Rule 65 ter summary does not include this evidence. At paragraph 6, it
17 simply says:
18 "Finally the witness will testify about the presence of
19 paramilitary units in Eastern Slavonia in the late summer/fall of 1991,
20 including units led by Arkan. Whilst operating in Eastern Slavonia,
21 Arkan was subject to Radovan -- subordinate to Radovan Stojicic, an
22 official of the MUP of Serbia."
23 That's the sum total of the discussion in the summary.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you specifically draw the attention in the
25 65 ter summary by the paramilitary's led by Arkan, would you then expect
1 that on the basis of the general observation, that the Defence could
2 understand that you would elicit evidence also on any groups that were
3 led by one of the accused?
4 MR. HOFFMANN: Well, the point being, you see, I think the
5 chronology. We obviously understand 65 ter to guarantee that the Defence
6 is put on notice. Now, the proofing note at issue has been submitted
7 after that 65 ter summary, as well as the testimony that had happened in
8 2008 has happened afterwards. It may well be that we should have filed
9 an amended 65 ter summary, but with all that notice, I'm still having
10 trouble to see the prejudice of the Defence, especially if they have
11 expected me to cover that area as was earlier said today.
12 MR. JORDASH: I'm sorry to keep leaping up and down,
13 Your Honours, the comment about expecting the Prosecution to do that is
14 premised on the fact that the Prosecution clearly intended to elicit the
15 evidence. And so we would have expected the Prosecution to speak to the
16 witness about it in the proofing sessions because they clearly intended
17 to lead it. What we are complaining about is that we were never told
18 about that intention.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, during proofing sessions with this
20 witness, has this matter been dealt with?
21 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes, and that's why we compiled that proofing note
22 which was disclosed two years ago.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No, but in the most recent proofing sessions. I
24 mean, we received a new proofing note.
25 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes, of course, but the latest proofing note
1 doesn't --
2 JUDGE ORIE: So what you say --
3 MR. HOFFMANN: -- repeat what was earlier notified.
4 JUDGE ORIE: What you say is that it didn't have to be contained
5 in your proofing note because it was already in the proofing note two
6 years ago which was then followed by evidence on the matter in this case,
7 which case then restarted after that. Anything to add at this moment?
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will take some time to consider how to
10 proceed and everyone is expected to remain standby.
11 --- Break taken at 5.02 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 5.10 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber allows the Prosecution to deal with the
14 subject matter to which objections were raised. At the same time, the
15 Chamber also is aware that it is a bit of a confusing situation, and
16 there may be a difference between the Stanisic Defence and the Simatovic
17 Defence. The fact that evidence that was heard earlier, that this
18 Chamber cannot rely on this evidence, of course we cannot because there
19 are other judges and that's not -- we have restarted that case which does
20 not automatically mean that nothing that has happened before or that
21 everything that happened before lost all of its relevance or importance.
22 At the same time, Mr. Hoffmann, it would have been preferable to
23 make these matters clear. I mean, the confusion exists partly due to the
24 fact that you were not explicit in these matters. To some extent,
25 although this may be less valid for the Stanisic Defence as it is for the
1 Simatovic Defence, to some extent the Chamber understands that if they
2 have to dig up all pieces of information that were there earlier, that
3 that makes it difficult, although, as I said before, less difficult for
4 the Stanisic Defence because they were present when this evidence was
5 elicited. They were -- they received the proofing note at the time
6 which, by the way, as I understand, was not received by the Chamber. So,
7 therefore, it needed less imagination that the same matter would be
8 covered by the present testimony.
9 Of course, for the Simatovic Defence, it's to some extent
10 different. The Chamber is, of course, not aware to what extent disclosed
11 proofing notes finally were received by the Simatovic Defence. At least
12 these counsel were not present during the earlier testimony when the case
13 was started. If I were Defence counsel, I would have read that
14 transcript of only one witness. So it's -- I think both sides are to be
15 blamed to a certain extent for the confusion that exists at this moment.
16 Under those circumstances, we allow you to continue, but the
17 Chamber will entertain any request for further remedies if the Defence
18 considers that it needs to further prepare for cross-examination. Again,
19 we are not going to postpone all of the cross-examination, but if there's
20 any specific request and if good cause is shown for that, we'll certainly
21 consider any additional remedy sought by the -- or any remedy sought by
22 the Defence.
23 The other matter on which we'll hear further submissions today,
24 that is, amending the 65 ter summary, is of a similar nature, and when
25 discussing what to do with that this morning, an observation was made,
1 during a meeting, which was about kids that start learning to -- how to
2 use a bike. During the first few days, you would expect the kids to come
3 back home with blood on their knees and bandages to be ready. After a
4 certain moment, the mothers will put back the bandages in the cupboard
5 and would expect that only exceptionally the kids would come back to them
6 with bloodied knees.
7 You may proceed.
8 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Witness, let me take the groups that you mentioned quickly one by
10 one. You mentioned Frenki's Men. Can you please explain to the Court
11 who Frenki was, if you know?
12 A. Frenki Simatovic was one of the top people in the MUP of Serbia.
13 I really don't know what his exact position was at the time. Whether he
14 was in charge of the Special Police Unit or of a detachment within the
15 MUP of Serbia
16 Q. Thank you. And you referred to another group called Badza's Men.
17 Can you tell who was Badza?
18 A. Radovan Stojicic, Badza, was at the time either the deputy or --
19 no, I think he was the commander of the Special Brigade. The Special
20 Police Unit in the Republican SUP of Serbia
21 Q. Thank you, sir. Do you have any knowledge if any of those units
22 that you mentioned a few minutes ago had any relationship among
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object again. With
25 your leave, the witness said that as for -- that he heard from old people
1 who could not distinguish who was who, that they said that there were
2 people coming there, groups. And now the Prosecutor is asking him to
3 talk about their mutual relations and on the basis of what?
4 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, this observation is appropriately to
5 be made when the witness doesn't follow the proceedings.
6 Could you take off your earphones for a second.
7 Mr. Petrovic, I do understand that you are asking for foundation,
8 factual knowledge which would create the foundation for the questions put
9 by Mr. Hoffmann; is that correct?
10 MR. PETROVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, you are invited to lay your
13 MR. HOFFMANN: My intention was to do so, but first elicit if he
14 has any information, then to see what the source of that information is,
15 with Your Honours' leave.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the answer to the previous questions would
17 justify the opposite order of proceeding. Please proceed.
18 MR. HOFFMANN: Very well, Your Honours.
19 Q. Witness, you mentioned that you had talked to people in the
20 villages about the presence of those paramilitary units that you
21 mentioned. Did you have any other source of information with regard to
22 those paramilitary units while you were in Osijek or Beli Manastir? And
23 if you could just, if any, list any such source.
24 A. Can we deal with this in closed session?
25 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 4862-4864 redacted. Private session.
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
15 MR. HOFFMANN:
16 Q. Witness, if you look at the letterhead, the stamp, and the
17 people -- the person who signed this document, this report from the
18 federal state security service, would you say that this document is
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. This report relates to pressure on Croats and Slovaks in the
22 SAO SBWS and to the presence of various paramilitary units. And that
23 reference is to be found on page 3, last paragraph in English, and
24 page 4, paragraph 2 in B/C/S. And having reviewed that document prior to
25 court, would you say that this report is in substance consistent with
1 your knowledge of the situation in the area?
2 A. Well, as far as I could see, this document clearly shows that
3 Ilok was part of that territory and that it can be -- that it is
4 consistent with the situation as it was in the field. At least the areas
5 where I was, in Beli Manastir and the area towards Osijek.
6 Q. Was it a normal procedure that the federal DB would report to the
7 Serbian DB here on a situation that actually occurred on the territory of
8 the Republic of Croatia
9 A. There were such instances because the border area towards Serbia
10 was Serbia
11 not competent as far as the war-time situation was and the activities,
12 and we did not get involved in the general crime because the federal
13 administration and the state security service, and I'm talking about my
14 service, for us, these were matters of no interest because all these
15 individuals acted publicly and their activities were public. So they
16 weren't of any interest as far as intelligence was concerned.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann.
18 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes, I would tender this document into evidence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be?
20 HE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P428, Your Honours. I
21 apologise, P429, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: P429 is admitted into evidence. I'd like to, before
23 we --
24 MR. HOFFMANN: Could I --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. HOFFMANN: -- ask that it be at least provisionally put under
2 seal until the issue of possible redactions is sorted out.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is admitted under seal. I want to put on
4 the record the following: That where the transcript says that P427, that
5 is a video which was announced as being 65 ter 4718, that that was
6 admitted into evidence, that we should be aware that it was uploaded in
7 e-court as 65 ter 4718.2.
8 Then one second, please.
9 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, you've used approximately your two
11 hours. Would that mean that you would need now time after the break?
12 MR. HOFFMANN: I would appreciate if I could have maybe another
13 10 minutes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ten minutes. Please organise yourself in such a way
15 that ten minutes will be enough.
16 We'll have a break and we'll resume at five minutes past 6.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 5.37 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 6.07 p.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, your ten minutes have started.
20 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you. The Prosecution will play just one
21 more little clip, again from Exhibit P18, the interview with
22 Vojislav Seselj. For the booth this is clip 5. It starts at
23 minute 46.14 in the original tape.
24 [Video-clip played]
25 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Reporter: What was the objective
1 of your battle over there? Was it to separate the Croats and the Serbs
2 so they wouldn't live in the same state anymore? What was really the
4 "Seselj: The objective of our fight was to keep Serbian
5 territories. We never wanted any Croatian territories. Our soldiers
6 never endangered any undeniably Croatian territories. But we didn't want
7 to let the Croats take the Serbian territories out of Yugoslavia. That
8 was the basic objective, and we achieved about 70 per cent of that
10 Q. Witness, very briefly, having heard what Seselj said here in
11 1995, is that consistent with the speeches that you heard of Seselj
12 earlier onwards?
13 A. Well, do you mean at that time or is it a reference to an earlier
14 period? Do you mean 1995 or earlier on, whether he said the same things
15 earlier on?
16 Q. The latter, if he had said similar things in previous years?
17 A. Well, yes, he said in the statement himself that he understood,
18 after he returned from America
19 it, and he also always spoke about Greater Serbia and the interests of
20 Greater Serbia
21 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honours. I have no further
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Hoffmann.
24 Who will be the first to cross-examine the witness, will it be
25 the Stanisic Defence or --
1 MR. JORDASH: The Stanisic Defence, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-038, you will now be cross-examined by
3 Mr. Jordash. Mr. Jordash is counsel for Mr. Stanisic.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
5 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Witness.
6 A. Good afternoon.
7 Q. Let me just start with a couple of preliminaries.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
9 microphone. Thank you.
10 MR. JORDASH: Sorry.
11 Q. With reference to the two clips from the Seselj video we've seen,
12 you commented earlier, and I para-phrase, that depending on the area in
13 which he gave the speech, it would differ a little but the objective was
14 the same. What was the objective which was the same, according to you?
15 A. Well, in almost all of his speeches he spoke about the
16 establishment of Greater Serbia by linking up certain territories from
17 the former Yugoslavia
18 up with Serbia
19 Q. Right. So he would tailor his speech to the audience in order to
20 express his consistent objective; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Have you listened to several of his speeches over the years?
23 A. Well, I did not listen them in their entirety. First of all, I
24 wasn't really attracted to them, nor was I particularly interested in
25 that aspect, but in just reading up a little bit on it, you could figure
1 out what he was saying. For instance, if he was speaking in Kragujevac,
2 Uzice or Kraljevo, in other words in central Serbia, there would be a
3 speech, at least as far as I could see, the impressions that I got as
4 compared to, for instance, when he was in Vojvodina where he also had
5 speeches. And I believe that once when he was in Kosovo, he was even
6 detained by the police. Where his speech had a direct impact on the
7 people who lived there in the territory, the speech would be far sharper
8 and far more extreme than the speech he would give in Kraljevo, for
9 instance, because there, he wouldn't have to point out his Serbianhood,
10 as it were -- Serbhood.
11 Q. Well, he would say what he wanted basically to achieve his aims.
12 Is that the impression you got from the speeches you in part listened to?
13 A. Well, yes, and after all the events and developments and based on
14 information we had from the service itself, his objective was one in the
16 Q. Okay.
17 MR. JORDASH: Could I have -- let's move to a different subject.
18 Could I have, please, on the e-court, Exhibit P429. Did I record the
19 [Microphone not activated] ... Sorry, it's 65 ter 4826 but it has been
20 given an exhibit number which I -- it is P429, I'm told, which is I hope
21 what I said. Yes, P429. Your Honours, page 59 of the transcript.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: Just for the same --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann.
24 MR. HOFFMANN: Just for the same reasons given before, I would
25 ask that it not be broadcast.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Registry instructed not to broadcast.
2 MR. JORDASH:
3 Q. I just wanted you to have a look at that and just remind you of
4 something you said so I can ask you further about it. Your Honours,
5 page 59 of the transcript today, you were asked by Mr. Hoffmann, for the
6 Prosecution, whether it was normal procedure that the federal DB would
7 report to the Serbian DB on a situation that occurred on the territory of
8 the Republic of Croatia
9 "There were such instances because the border area towards Serbia
10 was Serbia
11 Were you suggesting there that this was not normal procedure to
12 report to the Serbian DB, but when it directly concerned the border,
13 there might be reports?
14 A. This is not a report from the service. These are notes and you
15 should make a distinction between the two. These are notes by a member
16 of the federal ministry. As for a report, we have certain rules as to
17 how they are drafted, and I'm referring to our -- in our rules, but there
18 were instances where we would inform various republics, including Serbia
19 about intelligence that we obtained because as a federal service and a
20 federal Ministry of the Interior, we could not really take action on a
21 territory without the knowledge of the competent authorities on that
23 Q. Thank you for the explanation. The point I'm trying to
24 understand is your answer to the Prosecution when you said there were
25 such instances of, let's put it neutrally, relaying information from the
1 federal DB to the Serbian DB, and you appeared to suggest it occurred
2 when the issue related to the border area towards Serbia.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So that was when the federal DB would relay information, when it
5 concerned the territorial integrity of Serbia; is that correct? In the
6 time-frame we are looking at in this report, April of 1992. Can you
7 answer so the transcript can be --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And when it concerned matters within this report, matters which
10 you termed "general crime," there wasn't a consistent or normal practice
11 of reporting to the Serbian DB; is that correct?
12 A. Well, I cannot really say with certainty because I was not an
13 employee of that service. But in any case, no matter what type of
14 information that was being conveyed, whether it was an Official Note or
15 just sending them data and information that our service obtained, but
16 certainly the federal service also had a certain instructor role, but we
17 did not really deal with the problems in the field on the ground in
18 various republics, and to be more specific, without the presence of the
19 members of the Republic of Serbia
20 Republic of Serbia
21 Because we did not have the personnel or any operative conditions
22 where we could actually take action in the field, so our role was really
23 to -- to give guidance and instructions and to compare and sort of review
24 as to how far we have accomplished certain goals or resolve certain
1 MR. JORDASH: Can we turn, please, to page 3 of this report. And
2 I'm interested in the last paragraph, which should start: "In the last
3 seven days alone ..." Could we go to page 3 in the English and B/C/S,
5 Q. Could you just read that to yourself, Mr. Witness, please.
6 MR. JORDASH: Can we go to the bottom of the page in the English
7 version, please.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is this the third page, what I have
9 before me? Because it is not consistent with the English version. I'm
10 reading what is written in Serbian and it doesn't correspond to what I
11 see in the English version because some names are mentioned there. Can
12 you see that?
13 MR. JORDASH: Can we go to page 4 of the B/C/S and see if we can
14 find that paragraph. I'm looking for the paragraph:
15 "In the last seven days alone, Stevo Tinkotski from Bapska ..."
16 Can we see that?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's now -- it's the second paragraph.
18 MR. JORDASH: Second paragraph, thank you. Sorry for the delay.
19 Q. Can you just read that paragraph?
20 A. Well, something isn't really consistent here.
21 Q. Just read the whole paragraph and then tell us what is, in your
22 view, not consistent.
23 A. I don't see the page number, but all I can say is that it still
24 doesn't correspond to the English version. Just the last portion.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The pages are not the same. Would you please focus
1 exclusively on the second paragraph, the middle paragraph you see on your
2 screen, that's what Mr. Jordash wants you to read.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have read it. So what is the
4 issue? What am I supposed to comment on?
5 MR. JORDASH:
6 Q. The information I'm focusing on is the information that appears
7 to have been sent to the Serbian DB in April of 1992 concerning Bozovic
8 being a member of the Serbian guard. Was that something that you were
9 told at the time? Is that something you became aware of around that
11 A. Bozovic, or Beli as he was called, was not a member of the Serb
12 guard, but rather of the White Eagles. He was with Vuk Draskovic. He
13 had dealings with Vuk Draskovic. If that's the Bozovic that is mentioned
14 here. Yes, it says multicoloured uniforms of the Serbian guard. I don't
15 know whether this refers to Giska or to Beli, but I do remember the name,
16 and he belonged to the SPO or the White Eagles.
17 Q. Do you know agree with this categorisation that is in the
18 paragraph, no one knows who is who and who commands whom anymore. Was
19 that the problem with the information you were receiving in April of
21 You'll have to speak rather than nod, Mr. Witness?
22 A. Yes, that was the problem.
23 MR. JORDASH: Let's turn now to page 4 in the English version and
14 Q. Do you have that paragraph, Mr. Witness?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. It appears that representatives of the federal SUP were reporting
17 to the Serbian DB that in relation to the crimes in Ilok, they undertook
18 to inform the government and the Ministry of the Interior of the Serbian
19 Republic of Krajina
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Why was it that the federal SUP --
22 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps we should go into closed session so the
23 witness can answer the question, please, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private into session.
25 [Private session]
11 Pages 4876-4879 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session. Thank
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 MR. JORDASH:
13 Q. Again, I don't want to discuss what the law was and your
14 expectation that the Croatian authorities would have jurisdiction by law.
15 What I'm talking about is de facto, the reality on the ground at the
16 time. Did you and others, your colleagues, regard the Ministry of the
17 Interior of the Serbian Republic
18 Yes or no I think might suffice for this one.
19 A. No. No. If you are talking about --
20 Q. Who did you regard as the competent authority for dealing with
21 crimes in Ilok then?
22 A. It was the territory of Croatia
23 Again, I'm saying it's easy to discuss things now, from here, but it was
24 different, the situation was different in those times of war.
25 Q. If that's your answer, we can move on. Thank you.
1 Now, Gracanin, according to you, was appointed as federal
2 minister by Milosevic; is that a fair summary of your position today?
3 A. Briefly, clearly, as far as I'm concerned, no. But in a certain
4 situation, the one that prevailed then, it was somebody from Slovenia
6 they had cut off all relation with the federation and federal organs, and
7 then they probably wanted to have more personnel there. And bearing in
8 mind the fact that before holding this office, Petar Gracanin had been
9 president of the Presidency of Serbia, he could not have come to hold
10 this office without Milosevic's knowing about it.
11 MR. JORDASH: I think Madam has had a crash.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I missed that. I am afraid that we get all of
13 the beginning of today's transcript again, and then Judge Hall appears
14 and others who have not been present in this courtroom today, and that's
15 where the computers take over rather than ...
16 I am afraid that we have to accept that the transcript broke down
17 and that all the attempts to restore it -- on my right screen I get a
18 totally different picture compared to my left screen, that it has to be
19 restored. Now, I had on my mind that we would spend the last ten minutes
20 on hearing the submissions in relation to the motion which was filed by
21 the Prosecution. Now, I am aware that what I say now is maybe translated
22 and maybe recorded audio/video, and I'm looking at the transcriber,
23 apparently she's trying to get this language in the computer, although
24 it's not visible on our screens, that it arrives there. What I hope that
25 will happen is that once the text stops moving on our screens, that we
1 are at a point where we at least have a transcript again, and that would
2 be approximately at page 60 or 65, I take it, whereas we are now at close
3 to 38.
4 I am afraid that we have to give up for today because I
5 wouldn't -- unless -- unless the parties would be willing to make their
6 submissions without the transcript and to have it put on the record in
7 one way or another because it is an urgent matter, because the witness
8 may already arrive tomorrow.
9 Mr. Groome.
10 MR. GROOME: If I can make a suggestion, maybe exceptionally this
11 time both Defence counsel could make their submissions in an e-mail which
12 then could be read into the record at some point in the future when it is
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Jordash explained to us that he asked to
15 make oral submissions because he didn't have time to --
16 MR. JORDASH: I'd prepared -- I can put my submissions very
17 simply. It's --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but only with the consent of all parties, this
19 Chamber would be willing to hear the submission and then we would have to
20 find a way to put it on the record at a later stage because it would then
21 be as if we are hearing something out of court which then is put on the
22 record at a later stage. If all parties agree with such procedure, then
23 I have to consult with my colleagues whether that would be acceptable for
24 them as well.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: My colleagues agree, Mr. Jordash.
2 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour. Well, I understand from --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we can -- yes. Before we hear your submission,
4 Mr. Jordash, we better already excuse the witness.
5 We have a technical problem, but we would have concluded anyhow
6 at this time, so therefore, Witness JF-038, I'd like to instruct you that
7 you should not speak to anyone or communicate in any other way with
8 anyone about the testimony you've given or the testimony which is still
9 to be given starting tomorrow. We'd like to see you back tomorrow,
10 quarter past 2.00, in this same courtroom. The Usher will now escort you
11 out of the courtroom.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
15 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour. As I indicated, I'll put
16 my submissions very simply. I understand from the chronology that
17 Your Honours gave earlier that Your Honours are likely to be against the
18 submissions, so I will be very brief, but it is a question, as
19 Your Honours will appreciate, of notice. At one point the indictment
20 against these two accused included something of the events in Vukovar.
21 It no longer does include those events. We were told in the Rule 65 ter
22 summary that this witness would testify about effectively force --
23 forcible transfer of civilians and unlawful killing of civilians in
24 Skelani and villages along the Serbian border within Bosnia. The
25 Prosecution, with their application, seek to introduce a whole range of
1 completely different issues into the trial; namely, those issues which
2 relate to the events in Vukovar, a return to their original case against
3 the accused. I premised -- sorry. I qualify this submission with one
4 caveat which is that the Prosecution have not indicated what they allege
5 is the probative value of this evidence, but as it stands, the Defence
6 have to mount a rebuttal of allegations which effectively put Mr.
7 Simatovic at the centre of events in Vukovar. The latest proofing note
8 from this witness speaks of Frenki's Men and Arkan's Men going into the
9 town of Vukovar to fight and then withdraw to the surrounding positions.
10 So this evidence, what it does is it puts the Defence into the position
11 of having to, one, investigate a whole new crime base; two, cross-examine
12 on the fruits of that investigation and seek to undermine the inference
13 the Prosecution want to make. We now have to investigate Vukovar. We
14 now have to cross-examine on those events. This is not a situation where
15 the Prosecution is simply saying well, what we're interested in is the
16 training in Mount Tara
17 Vukovar. We are not interested in the events in Vukovar. This is a
18 situation where, as time has gone on, the Prosecution have sought to
19 adduce fresh evidence about direct participation in crimes by
20 Mr. Simatovic and, by inference, Mr. Stanisic. Those are our objections.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Groome, very brief response to start
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just briefly. It seems to me that the
24 65 ter deals with two things: One is notice to the accused so they can
25 prepare their case; it also provides the Chamber with the essence of what
1 the witness will testify to so that the witness -- so that the Chamber
2 can manage the case, can make decisions about whether to require the
3 Prosecution to reduce its case. It seems we are talking about here
4 about notice. As the Chamber has pointed out earlier today, the
5 Prosecution has been very consistent in its statement or its assertion
6 that it would be seeking to introduce all of the testimony. We have
7 never, ever, waivered from that. It is when I discovered a technical
8 breach of the 65 ter that we -- that the person who wrote it did not
9 properly summarise all of the material we gave notice we were going to
10 introduce, that I asked that a submission be prepared to correct that.
11 I'd also point out, although the Prosecution has dropped the
12 killings in Vukovar, the Prosecution charges or the indictment charges
13 persecution and deportation/forcible transfer of the entire SAO SBWS,
14 which includes the Vukovar area. So there can be no mistake that
15 although the killings have been dropped, the events of Vukovar are still
16 relevant to this trial.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you are the responding party, any need
18 to make further submissions, which should be limited in time.
19 MR. JORDASH: Can I just have a moment just to read what
20 Mr. Groome has said, just ten seconds will do it.
21 I think Your Honours have our submission. A technical breach of
22 the Rule 65 ter may be a technical breach for the Prosecution. For us,
23 we use the Rule 65 ter documents as an indication of what a witness is
24 going to say and an indication of what investigation we must conduct. We
25 have not conducted any investigation into the Vukovar incident because it
1 isn't in the Rule 65 ter notice document. And whilst the Prosecution are
2 technical correct insofar as they say the indictment includes the whole
3 of the SBWS, it's a very different situation to have specific allegations
4 of direct participation which require specific investigation. Forcible
5 transfer of the entire SBWS requires investigation into what evidence --
6 sorry, what we've been told is going to be led through the vehicle of the
7 Rule 65 ter document. It doesn't require us to go to the whole of the
8 SBWS and investigate every single town and village. Those are our
9 submissions. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn for the day. We have a transcript
13 again on our screen which means that the adjournment and especially when
14 we'll resume is clearly put on the record. We adjourn and we resume
15 tomorrow, the 13th of May, quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, in this
16 same courtroom, II.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.
18 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of May,
19 2010, at 2.15 p.m.