Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4807

 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]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 4808

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 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

Page 4809

 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, was

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

Page 4810

 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

Page 4811

 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

23     birth?

24        A.   Yes, these are my details.

25             MR. HOFFMANN:  Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders this

Page 4812

 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, in the Martic case?

 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

16     substance?

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

Page 4813

 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

 5     session.

 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

Page 4814

 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.

Page 4815

 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

Page 4816

 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

10     summary.

11             MR. HOFFMANN:  JF-038 was sent with a delegation of the Ministry

12     of Interior of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the SFRY, in

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,

Page 4817

 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

 6     1991.

 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.

Page 4818

 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.  The federal MUP was formally taken over by the

 5     MUP of Serbia on 9 October 1992.  Officials of the Serbian DB took part

 6     in that take-over.

 7        Q.   Witness, during your testimony in the Martic case, and that is on

 8     31st March 2006, at transcript 3037 and following, you described a

 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,

Page 4819

 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

Page 4820

 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 and that he came to the country, or rather, to

10     Knin from Australia.  But later on I also saw him in Serbia.  And in view

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

Page 4821

 1     proposed prisoner exchange between the Knin police and the Croatian

 2     authorities.

 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

10     today?

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

21     exchanges?

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

Page 4822

 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

23     use.

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

Page 4823

 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

Page 4824

 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

11     document?

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

Page 4825

 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.  And if I may add on the point of whether

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

Page 4826

 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

Page 4827

 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

Page 4828

 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

Page 4829

 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.

Page 4830

 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, and that is to be found at transcript 3070 on

21     3 April 2006.  And he further stated to you and your colleagues at the

22     time that his goal and that of the Croatia Serbs was to establish a

23     district to unite all Serbs in Croatia, a unified state of all Serbs.

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

Page 4831

 1     the Serb TV Knin on 4 July 1993.  For the booth, this is actually clip

 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

14     video.

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 has no authority over these areas.  To decide to

25     make such a move as we did, surely it required at least some courage.  We

Page 4832

 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

Page 4833

 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

 6     it?

 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

Page 4834

 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

25     e-court.

Page 4835

 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

Page 4836

 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?

Page 4837

 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 at the time, Milosevic.  Then there were

 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

21     Yugoslavia, or to remain in a certain Serbian state?

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

Page 4838

 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

Page 4839

 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.

Page 4840

 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

10     proceed.

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

20     Knin?

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,

Page 4841

 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

Page 4842

 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 had organised the work of the state security

 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.  The first meeting, protocol

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

13     Croatia to introduce us.  And we had this meeting on the first day when

14     we arrived in Croatia, in Sibenik, on the MUP premises.

15             Vice Vukojevic, in that preliminary conversation, just mentioned

16     that they were aware that the Serbian service was active or present in

17     Croatia.  He did not indicate where exactly he meant, but we took it to

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

Page 4843

 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.

Page 4844

 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

 4     interfere.

 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,

Page 4845

 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

Page 4846

 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 stands for?

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

23     Slavonia and Baranja, the so-called SAO SBWS.  And just for your

24     orientation the relevant map in the Court binder would be map 18, already

25     admitted as Exhibit P9.

Page 4847

 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 and finally to Beli Manastir in the SAO SBWS.  And my

 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

11     Osijek to try and verify the situation in Srem and Osijek, I went

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

Page 4848

 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

 9     mentioned.

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

20     language?

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

Page 4849

 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

Page 4850

 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 which in detail outlines that part,

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.

Page 4851

 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,

Page 4852

 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

Page 4853

 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

16     evidence.

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

Page 4854

 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

25     that?

Page 4855

 1             MR. HOFFMANN:  Yes, and I think it's clear from our filings and

 2     submissions.

 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

Page 4856

 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

Page 4857

 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

Page 4858

 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,

Page 4859

 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, I really wouldn't know for that particular period of time.

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

23     themselves?

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

Page 4860

 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

12     foundation.

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.

Page 4861

 1                           [Private session]

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 4862











11 Pages 4862-4864 redacted. Private session.















Page 4865

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

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

19     authentic?

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

Page 4866

 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.  It belonged to Serbia.  We, from the federal ministry, were

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.

Page 4867

 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

Page 4868

 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

 3     objective?

 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

 9     objective."

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, that he saw what he saw and he confirmed

19     it, and he also always spoke about Greater Serbia and the interests of

20     Greater Serbia and the Serbian people in all of his speeches.

21             MR. HOFFMANN:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I have no further

22     questions.

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 --

Page 4869

 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 that belonged to Croatia, Bosnia, and linking them

18     up with Serbia and thus establishing the Greater 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

Page 4870

 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

15     same.

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.

Page 4871

 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.  And you answered:

 9             "There were such instances because the border area towards Serbia

10     was Serbia.  It belonged to 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

22     territory.

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

Page 4872

 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, or rather, the ministry of the

20     Republic of Serbia.  I don't know how else to describe this.

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

25     problems.

Page 4873

 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,

 4     please?

 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

Page 4874

 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

10     time?

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

20     1992?

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

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 4875

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14        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 to take necessary measures.  Do you see that?

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]

Page 4876











11 Pages 4876-4879 redacted. Private session.















Page 4880

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8                           [Open session]

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.  Thank

10     you.

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 of Krajina as the competent authority?

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 and the Croatian ministry.

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.

Page 4881

 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 or

 5     Macedonia that was supposed to send someone to become minster.  However,

 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

Page 4882

 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

13     working.

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]

Page 4883

 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

Page 4884

 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, which was a precursor to troops then going into

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

22     with.

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

Page 4885

 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

Page 4886

 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.